campus_research_verify_document_identity

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond that: 'Fails closed on a mismatch' and the scope limit 'Does not judge scientific claims'. It still doesn't describe the shape of a mismatch/failure result, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core check, then the conditional PDF case, then the behavioral boundary. Dense but every sentence carries information; the middle sentence is slightly overloaded but not wasteful.

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?

For a 7-parameter, no-output-schema verification tool, the description covers the identity-matching rule, the fallback author/year path, failure behavior, and the scope boundary. Gaps remain around the url/format parameters and the concrete form of a success or failure response, but the core decision-relevant context is present.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the semantics of five of seven parameters (expectedSha256 as the file identity, expectedTitle, expectedDoi 'when provided', expectedAuthors as a canonical short author list, expectedYear in the matching rule) and the matching logic that ties them together. It leaves url and format unexplained, so not a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking that an already-read file (identified by required SHA-256) contains an expected bibliographic title and DOI. This implicitly distinguishes it from the read_* tools that produce the file and from verify_doi/verify_citation, which operate on identifiers rather than a local artifact. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it replaces, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

It makes the precondition explicit ('the already-read file', required SHA-256) and gives a concrete conditional usage path: when the DOI appears only in a self-citation after the abstract, pass canonical expectedAuthors and expectedYear. It does not state when NOT to use it versus verify_doi or verify_citation, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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