Validate a legal citation against the corpus

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a crucial behavioral guarantee: it 'never fills in plausible text' when resolution fails, which is a key trust signal beyond the annotations. This adds meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded ('Resolve a citation...'), and the critical behavior (no fabrication) is stated immediately after. It is compact and well-structured, with every word earning its place.

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 tool is simple (3 optional params, output schema exists), so the description need not explain return format. It covers the main behavior, the failure mode, and a usage context. It does not mention parameter interplay or edge cases, but these are minor given the schema and output schema coverage. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 100%, so all parameters are already documented with examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema handles the heavy lifting. It neither enriches nor detracts from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it resolves a citation against the corpus and returns exact matching text or a 'cannot validate' verdict. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/get/compute tools by focusing on validation rather than discovery or calculation. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'citation against the corpus' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use this before relying on any AI-generated citation.' This gives actionable context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use search_statute instead), so it falls short of a 5 but earns a 4 for a strong contextual cue.

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