campus_research_verify_quote

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

The description adds rich context beyond annotations: it specifies fail-closed logic, exact DOI registry metadata checks, retraction and editorial update checks, SHA-256 and title/DOI presence in the file, and page/section sentence verification. It also lists supported formats and clarifies that fragments remain partial and wider context needs review. Annotations only cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so this adds substantial value.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence earns its place: it covers checks, formats, alternatives, and limitations without any filler. It is a single paragraph but logically ordered and appropriately sized.

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?

Given a complex tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description is largely complete: it explains the verification logic, supported formats, and key limitations. It could be more complete by detailing the roles of url, expectedYear, and expectedAuthors, but it provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

With only 30% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially does. It implies doi, expectedSha256, expectedTitle, quote, page, and section through phrases like 'same file SHA-256', 'title and DOI in the file', and 'complete quoted sentence on the stated PDF page or document section', and lists format values. However, it does not explain url, expectedYear, or expectedAuthors, leaving significant gaps.

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 (check) and resource (full-sentence quotation) with multiple fail-closed conditions, clearly distinguishing it from verify_evidence for CSV/XLSX data. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool verify_quotes (plural), leaving a potential routing ambiguity.

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 explicitly names the alternative verify_evidence for CSV/XLSX rows or cells and notes that data locators are not complete sentences. It also implies usage for full-sentence quotations, but does not cover when to choose it over verify_quotes or other sibling verification tools.

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