Verify Citation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that verification is against 'official Italy and ECLI/ELI registries' and that existence is checked live, but it does not say what happens on failure, whether lookups are network-dependent or rate-limited, or how partial matches are treated.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly overloaded by packing jurisdiction, registries, and rationale into one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 explained), the description covers scope, sources, and intent adequately. The main residual gap is failure/edge-case behavior, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'citation' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples ('ECLI:IT:CASS:2024:1234CIV', 'Legge 241/1990') reinforce the accepted formats but add little beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('validates format and live existence') and resource ('legal citations') with an explicit jurisdiction scope (Italy/IT) and concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_* tools, which retrieve documents rather than verify a given citation.

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 phrase 'to prevent AI-hallucinated citations' implies the use case (checking a citation before relying on it), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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