lt_check_document_references

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: what citation forms are matched, that validation is against TAR, and that constitutional-ruling matching is title-only with no outcome data. It doesn't mention cost/rate characteristics of up to 300 external checks, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact catalogue of recognised citation forms with Lithuanian examples — every element earns its place. Slightly long, and the examples could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and all four parameters are covered by the schema. Usage relative to the near-duplicate lt_resolve_reference is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

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 100%, so the schema already explains text, as_of, max_references and include_constitutional_rulings in detail. The description adds meaning only indirectly, through the enumeration of citation patterns it will find; it adds no format or limit guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: extract every cited act/provision from a document and validate each against TAR. The scope is unambiguous, but the closest sibling (lt_resolve_reference, which resolves a single reference) is never named, so an agent must infer the bulk-vs-single distinction.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool fits (documents that cite other acts by number/date, name, defined short name, or provision) and explicitly routes one sub-case away: 'no outcomes - use lt_find_rulings_on_act for those'. No exclusion against lt_resolve_reference or lt_search, so not a full 5.

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