check_authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a good job: it reveals the legal rule applied, declares that treatises/law-review articles/practitioner opinions count as non-authority, and states it does not weigh. It could add whether the operation is read-only or how results are returned, but it is substantively transparent.

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 statement is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes: legal rule, non-authority examples, non-weighing limitation, and parameter meanings. It is slightly more verbose than necessary, but no sentence is filler.

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 legal-domain classification tool with no annotations, the description conveys the key external context, parameter semantics, and an important limitation. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable. It does not mention edge cases or related sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the Args section defines text as 'The draft to analyse' and explains tax_year as checking each authority against that year. This is sufficient for both parameters, though it does not give format constraints or examples.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Classify a draft's citations as authority, or not, for penalty purposes.' It also narrows the scope to the substantial-authority standard. However, it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like verify_citations or resolve_citation; it only says it does not weigh, which is more behavioral than a sibling comparison.

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 states when it applies ('for penalty purposes', citing Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii)) and gives a clear exclusion: it classifies, it does not weigh. It does not explicitly point to an alternative tool for weighing or verification, so it stops short of full when/alternative guidance.

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