it_verify_citations

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds substantial detail about actual behavior: extraction of specific citation types, checking against Normattiva and Constitutional Court indexes, trigram matching for parenthetical descriptions, and returning range hints for non-existent articles. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense with useful information in three sentences, covering extraction, verification sources, content-checking, and edge-case behavior. While not wasteful, it exceeds a bare minimum and is organized effectively, though a slightly more compact style could earn a 5.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (checking multiple citation types, multiple sources, and content matching), the description covers the key behaviors and edge cases. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with both 'text' and 'max_citations' clearly described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verifies Italian legal citations found in a text against their real sources, specifying the exact types of citations (statutes, ECLIs) and the verification process. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like it_resolve or it_case_search, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (whenever you need to verify citations in a text) but offers no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'use instead of X' or 'not for Y' guidance, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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