verify_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the tool confirms existence, returns specified fields in Redbook order, catches wrong volume/page/year, and compares the expected name against canonical to flag drift. It does not describe not-found/error behavior, but the core behavioral characteristics are well covered.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: a front-loaded purpose, a compact list of exact return contents, and the conditional behavior for expected_case_name. Every sentence carries distinct useful information.

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 tool's behavior is simple enough that this description, together with an output schema and a fully described two-parameter input schema, is largely complete. The only notable omission is what happens when the citation or case cannot be verified, but that is a minor gap for an otherwise well-specified verification 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it gives example query formats ('2024 ND 156') and clarifies expected_case_name's role as a draft name checked against canonical for drift. This goes beyond the schema's terse field docs.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Verify' and the resource 'a citation or case name,' and immediately defines the deliverable: 'return its canonical form.' It details exact outputs (case name, filing date, authoring justice, parallel cites, formatted citation), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup/search tools even without naming them.

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 the use case: when a citation or case name needs canonical verification, and when expected_case_name is provided, name drift is flagged. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like lookup_opinion, get_parallel_citations, or verify_quotation, nor does it give any exclusion criteria.

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