verify_article

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

No annotations provided. Description compensates by stating it returns current wording (consolidated text), only the requested article, and that it uses official sources. No contradictions.

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?

Description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value: purpose, sources, behavior, format, examples. Front-loads the main purpose. Could be slightly tighter but still efficient.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers input format, sources, and behavior. Sufficient for a single-parameter tool with clear return (article text).

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 0% for the single parameter 'citation'. Description provides detailed format, examples, and code listing instruction, adding essential meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states it returns the exact wording of a cited provision from official sources (api.sejm.gov.pl, EUR-Lex), returns only the article not the whole act, and distinguishes from sibling list_acts by focusing on verification.

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?

Description explains when to use: for verifying citations directly from source (anti-hallucination). Provides format and examples, and mentions sibling tool list_acts for codes. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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