check_citations

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a per-claim report with verdict, sufficiency, and a conformal guarantee, plus a signed receipt. It also mentions limitations. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or destructive, though the nature of fact-checking implies read-only.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, GUIDELINES, PARAMETERS, LIMITATIONS) and is concise, packing essential information into a short paragraph without 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, limitations, and distinguishes from siblings. It includes details about the return format and receipt, which is sufficient for most use cases. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact structure of the claim report beyond verdict and sufficiency.

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 description adds context to the schema: 'text = the prose (claims extracted automatically)' and reiterates the range for maxClaims. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description compensates by clarifying the meaning of 'text' and that claims are extracted automatically.

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 verb (fact-check), resource (claims in a block of text), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling verify_claim by noting it is the batch form. It also specifies the use case: AI-generated drafts before publishing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('before you publish or act'), when not to ('Use verify_claim for a single claim'), and details limitations such as skipping questions/opinions and maxClaims bounds.

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