Check a reference list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it checks against four databases, issues verdicts (verified, mismatch, not_found, unverifiable), flags retractions and corrections, and can output corrected BibTeX. This goes beyond the annotations and explains the tool's behavior in detail.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Checks up to 30 citations') and then packs in the key details (sources, verdicts, flags, and the optional BibTeX output). Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers input formats, limits, sources, verdict types, and the optional corrected BibTeX. Since an output schema exists, return values are presumably documented elsewhere. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention what happens if the input exceeds 30 citations, but 'up to 30' implies a limit. Overall, it is well-rounded and sufficient 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?

The input schema describes both parameters, but the description adds value by specifying that 'text' can be a pasted reference list, one per line, numbered, or BibTeX. It also clarifies that 'bibtex=true' adds corrected BibTeX per reference, which is consistent with the schema. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('Checks') and a specific resource ('up to 30 citations'), and details the sources and verdict types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the scope (list vs. single work, and covering multiple sources vs. retractions) even though it doesn't name them explicitly. A minor deduction for not directly naming the alternatives.

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 implies usage (verifying a reference list) and provides a clear limit (up to 30) and input formats, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over check_retractions or lookup_work, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but no explicit guidance is given.

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