campus_research_verify_citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral content beyond them: the exact failure conditions that produce citeAllowed=false (mismatch, absent record, incomplete metadata, retraction, exact editorial update), pointers to retractionNotices/editorialNotices, and the constraint that citationRecord is registry-only and must never be completed by inference. That is unusually rich disclosure for a read-only check.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose and the precondition come first, then failure modes, then the evidence caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the middle clause packing five failure conditions into one sentence is slightly compressed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics — and it does, naming citeAllowed, retractionNotices/editorialNotices, and citationRecord's registry-only nature, plus the downstream evidence requirement. An agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 75%, with the schema itself documenting expectedYear, expectedTitle, and expectedAuthors match semantics. The description only implicitly covers doi/expectedTitle ('a discovered title', 'DOI record') and says nothing material about expectedYear or expectedAuthors beyond what the schema already states, so it adds little over the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('strictly verify') and resource ('a discovered title ... against an exact Crossref or DataCite DOI record') and frames the precondition ('before citing it'). This distinguishes it from sibling verifiers like campus_research_verify_doi and campus_research_verify_document_identity, which target DOI validity and document identity rather than title-to-registry match.

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?

Clear context is given: run this before citing a discovered title, and the earlier claim still requires document identity and page/section evidence. However, it never names the sibling alternatives (verify_doi, verify_document_identity, verify_evidence) or states when those would be preferred over this tool, so routing is only partly guided.

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