Parse OSCOLA Citations

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

The description discloses that parsing is pure regex by default and explains the optional disambiguation via MCP sampling, which is beyond what annotations provide. It also notes that citations resolve to URLs when possible but existence is not confirmed, aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is somewhat lengthy but front-loads the purpose and every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall 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?

The description, combined with annotations and an output schema (indicated as present), covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how it works, input constraints, behavior options, and post-processing steps. No gaps remain.

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 are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context: the max length for 'text', and the behavior and trade-offs of the 'disambiguate' parameter, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: extracting and classifying OSCOLA citations from free text. It lists specific citation types and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'citations_resolve' by noting that verification is a separate step.

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 starts with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and provides clear usage context. It also advises to use 'citations_resolve' afterwards to verify citation existence, effectively telling the agent when not to rely solely on this tool.

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