verify_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool checks all citations and quotations, reports error-severity findings, and can flag provisions that did not govern a given tax year. There is slight ambiguity about whether 'fix' implies mutation, but the read-only 'check' framing is strong.

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 and each sentence earns its place. The Args section is compact, and the guidance about tax_year is useful rather than redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, and both parameters. The phrase 'official sources' is somewhat vague, and more detail about the return format would help, but the output schema mitigates that gap.

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 define the parameters, and it does. text is described as 'Markdown or plain text', and tax_year is given meaningful semantics: flag non-governing provisions and pass it whenever a specific year is in question.

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?

Describes a specific action ('Check every citation and quotation') against a specific resource ('official sources'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling search, retrieval, and resolution tools. The purpose is immediately obvious and actionable.

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?

States when to use it ('on your own draft before you finish') and gives condition-dependent guidance for tax_year. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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