campus_research_verify_citation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: exact failure conditions (mismatches, absent records, incomplete metadata), the return field citeAllowed, and the rule that citationRecord must never be completed by inference.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, purpose first, then failure behavior, then scope limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's core behavior, output semantics (citeAllowed, citationRecord), and limits. With no output schema, including the return field names and strictness rules is helpful. It does not enumerate every edge case, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, and the schema already explains expectedTitle, expectedYear, and expectedAuthors well. The description reinforces that title comparison must be exact but does not add significant new meaning for individual parameters, especially doi, which has no schema description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Strictly verify that a discovered title belongs to an exact DOI record.' It clearly differentiates this tool from related siblings like campus_research_verify_doi and campus_research_verify_evidence by stating it verifies bibliographic identity only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use before citing, and it explicitly states when not to use it for evidence verification ('claims still require page or section evidence from the document'). It does not name the exact alternative tool, but the when/when-not guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.