verify_citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the possible result states and the warning that NOT_FOUND is not proof of fabrication, which materially changes how an agent should report results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the result vocabulary, then the critical caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the return-value gap is partly covered, and the description usefully summarizes the state vocabulary. However, with four undescribed optional parameters and no guidance on input matching semantics, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and all four parameters (doi, year, title, authors) are undocumented and optional. The description says nothing about which combination to supply, the matching/precedence logic, or that at least one identifier is presumably needed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Check that a citation is real and matches its record') and no sibling tool in the set covers verification, so the agent can distinguish it immediately. Enumerating the four outcome states further pins down what the tool actually does.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (verifying bibliographic references) but the description never states when to reach for this versus get_paper_details or search_literature, nor any prerequisites. It does add interpretive guidance on the NOT_FOUND result, which is useful but not a when-to-use rule.

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