citation_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required authentication token, character and citation caps, rate limit, and output flags (FOUND, NOT_FOUND, UNKNOWN_REPORTER, NOT_CHECKED_OVER_CAP). It does not cover error handling for invalid tokens, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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, well-structured paragraph of five sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage instructions, then behavioral details and limitations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, authentication, limits, and output type. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides a description for the 'text' parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds significant value by explaining the two input forms (free text or single citation string), the maximum character length, and the citation cap behavior. This goes beyond the schema definition.

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 purpose: verifying legal citations against CourtListener's database to catch fabricated or mangled citations. It specifies the verb 'verify' and the resource 'legal citations', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like case_detail or opinion_search.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('before relying on legal citations'), how to use it (pass free text or a single citation string), and operational limits (characters, citations, rate limit). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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