cite_check

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

Discloses that results include false positives from full-text search and that it is not authoritative like Shepard's. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not cover permissions, rate limits, or data handling.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it could be structured with clearer separation of behavioral details.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks detail on output format, result interpretation, and prerequisites. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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 description provides no explanation of the three parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the agent must rely on parameter names alone, which may be ambiguous (e.g., max_following).

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 states it detects citation relationships for a case, specifying it is partial and not Shepard's, and includes false positives. This gives a clear verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like precedent_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description implies it is for citation checking but provides no context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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