check_citation_parity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it explicitly says the tool is read-only, flags its heuristic nature, and clarifies that results are review candidates rather than definitive verdicts. This is substantial transparency, though it does not discuss edge cases or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the main action, then cover the two checking directions, the heuristic caveat, and the read-only safety property. There is no filler and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is largely complete for a single-parameter, read-only, heuristic checker with an output schema: it covers purpose, scope, severity, and safety. It would be more complete with explicit parameter guidance and clearer placement among the many citation-related sibling tools.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single file_path parameter or its expected format. The parameter name is self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states a specific verb ('Cross-check') and a specific resource (APA in-text citations vs. the reference list), and it defines the two directions checked. This clearly differentiates it from generic validation tools like validate_document or validate_cross_references.

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 should be used for APA citation/reference-list parity checking and sets expectations that results are review candidates, not verdicts. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, so sibling differentiation is left mostly to inference.

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