verify_quote

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 the fuzzy matching tolerance for PDF artifacts, the 90/100 threshold, and what is returned (page and exact passage), but says nothing about failure behavior, permissions, or what happens when no match is found.

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?

Two tight sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, and every clause (tolerance, threshold, return content) adds information without padding.

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 two-parameter verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers mechanics and return content but omits the meaning of 'key' and any failure/no-match behavior. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 only 50%: the 'quote' parameter is documented (including the '...' joining syntax) but 'key' has no schema description and the description never explains it. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 and resource ('Check that a quote is really in the source') and adds scope detail (fuzzy tolerance, threshold). It distinguishes the operation from sibling read/scan tools by naming quote verification, but does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like find_evidence or check_bibliography.

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 implies the tool is for confirming quotes exist, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. With siblings such as find_evidence and check_bibliography, an agent gets no routing help.

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