verify_citations

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (extract all citations and check existence) and batch processing, but does not disclose output format, side effects, or any safety profile. Since it's a verification tool, the risk is lower, but the lack of return-value or side-effect disclosure leaves a transparency gap.

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: the first explains the purpose and scope, the second provides usage conditions and an alternative. Every sentence contributes new information with no waste, and the alternative is tucked into a parenthetical for compactness.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage timing, and alternative tool. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the low complexity and strong schema, the description is nearly complete; only minor details about results are missing.

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% with a detailed parameter description ('the full text of the report/answer draft to extract and verify citations from'), so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds only a slight nuance ('long text') but does not significantly exceed the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: automatically extracting and batch-verifying K-IFRS standard/paragraph citations and Q&A document number citations from long text. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool verify_citation by explicitly noting it handles batch verification vs single-citation content checks.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'before outputting answers with 3+ citations or when accuracy is important.' It also names the alternative for single-citation content comparison ('verify_citation'), covering both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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