Check quotes against captured evidence

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, no-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: that `found` only asserts a literal text match at the locator rather than validating the claim, plus an explicit injection-resistance policy (directives in documents are quoted data). It does not describe failure/partial-match reporting, but the output schema covers returns.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by the exclusion and the important `found` caveat. The two trailing blocks (injection warning and verbatim-quote policy) are longer than the core instruction, which slightly dilutes the front-loading, though they carry real value in a legal-citation context.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted locators, exclusions, output semantics, and evidentiary policy. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, though behavior on non-matching claims is left to the output schema.

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% and every field of the `claims` array, including the nested `source` object and `variants`, is documented in the schema itself. The description restates the locator forms (Bates+page, source id) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — verifying that quotes appear at cited locators — and enumerates the two accepted locator forms (portal Bates+page, registered source id). An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling read tools like portal_get_page_text or portal_search.

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?

"Run this before publishing a number" gives a clear activation point, and "accepts no URLs and no file paths" rules out an obvious wrong invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. using portal_get_page_text to obtain the verbatim text being checked).

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