Parse OSCOLA Citations

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description matches. It adds behavioral context: default pure-regex parsing, optional LLM-based disambiguation via MCP sampling, and URL resolution without existence confirmation. This goes beyond 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 well-organized with clear sections and bullet points. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. The structure aids readability and comprehension.

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 complexity (multiple citation types, optional disambiguation, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers usage, behavior, parameter details, and post-processing steps, leaving no major gaps.

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 100%, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema. For 'text', it elaborates on supported citation formats; for 'disambiguate', it explains the trade-off and when to enable it. This provides practical guidance.

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 it extracts and classifies OSCOLA-style citations from free text. It lists specific citation types and distinguishes from sibling tools like citations_resolve (verification) and citations_format_oscola (formatting).

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and gives clear use cases. It also advises 'AFTER calling, pass each citation through citations_resolve to verify', providing a clear workflow and excluding misuse. It explains when to use the optional disambiguation parameter.

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