expand_citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the process (extract citations, fetch full text, append to answer) and notes the contrast with verify_citations. It does not mention edge cases like 'no citations found' or error handling, but the core behavioral mechanism is transparent and consistent.

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 two sentences long, well-structured, and front-loads the core functionality in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable usage guidance without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overall picture: what it does, how it differs from a sibling, and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the exact return format (e.g., whether it returns the appended answer as a string or a structured object), but the phrase '답변에 붙여 반환합니다' strongly implies the output is the modified answer.

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% and every parameter (text, placement, max_body_chars, include_inquiry) has a detailed description. The tool description adds only general context about the tool's purpose but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: automatically extracts K-IFRS/K-GAAP standard and Q&A document citations from an LLM answer draft, fetches the original text, and appends it to the answer. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool verify_citations, which only checks existence, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when the user asks to show the original text' or when citation basis must be clearly shown) and provides an explicit alternative (verify_citations for existence-check only). This gives strong usage context and avoids confusion with siblings.

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