fr_validate_citation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant context: it explains the fail-closed mechanism, lists all return fields (document_exists, provision_exists, in_force, citation), and mentions error codes ('missing_arg', 'corpus_error'). This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent about expected outputs and failure modes.

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 compact with three sentences: purpose, fail-closed behavior, and return fields/errors. Each sentence conveys distinct information with no redundancy. The use of Polish with some English terms is slightly informal but still efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its behavior on failure, and what it returns (including error codes). It does not explain the sibling tools but that is partially covered by their names. The absence of output schema is compensated by the explicit listing of return fields.

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?

Both parameters (document_id, provision_ref) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of them adds no new semantic details; it only restates their role in the citation check. Baseline score of 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's purpose: grounding citations by checking if a document_id and provision_ref exist in the corpus, explicitly calling it anti-hallucination. This distinguishes it from siblings like fr_search or fr_article, which have different primary functions.

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 fail-closed behavior (if document or provision missing, provision_exists=false) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like fr_search or fr_article. The use case of citation validation is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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