Verify Citation

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose something valuable beyond the schema: verification is performed against live external registries, which implies network latency and possible registry unavailability. It does not say whether an unverifiable or malformed citation raises an error or returns a negative result, nor anything about rate limits or authority of the check.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verifier framing and then states scope and targets. Minor waste in the redundant 'No-Hallucination' label and the repeated example, but nothing that obscures the purpose.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the definition covers jurisdiction scope and verification targets adequately. The remaining gap is failure-mode behavior — what a non-verified citation looks like — which is partly absorbed by the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'citation' parameter is already fully documented, and the description only repeats the same example formats ('ECLI:DE:BGH:...' or 'BGB § 433') that the schema already shows. This is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting, with no additional parsing or normalization guidance added.

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 uses a specific verb ('validates') on a specific resource ('legal citations ... against official Germany and ECLI/ELI registries'), and the name plus wording make clear this is a verification tool rather than one of the sibling search_* tools. The 'No-Hallucination Citation Verifier for Germany (DE)' preamble is marketing framing, but the operational sentence behind it is precise.

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 scope ('Germany (DE)', 'format and live existence') implies you come here with a citation already in hand, whereas the siblings discover documents. However, it never states the when-to-use boundary explicitly — no 'use search_case_law to find a citation, use this to confirm one' routing, and no statement of what to do when verification fails.

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