aegis_check_citations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the data-sharing boundary ('Only reference metadata is sent to Crossref; the paper text stays local') and the specific findings the report will contain. Rate limits or failure behavior on unmatched DOIs are not covered.

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?

Purpose and the Crossref/privacy constraint are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the list of detectable defects and a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, though the docstring-style Args formatting is slightly heavier than necessary.

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, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the operation, its external dependency, its privacy boundary, and both parameters. Missing only ancillary details like expected file formats or behavior when Crossref is unreachable.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it does: file_path is documented as an absolute path and html_report is explained as saving a self-contained HTML report with its default. Format expectations beyond 'absolute path' (supported file types) are left unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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 (verify) and resource (a paper's references) plus the external authority (Crossref) and the scope qualifier 'citations module only'. This clearly separates it from aegis_check_guidelines and aegis_analyze_paper without needing to open either schema.

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 implies usage context by enumerating the exact defects it detects (hallucinated DOIs, mismatches, predatory venues, self-citation inflation, missing-DOI rate), which tells the agent what it is for. However, it never states when to prefer it over the sibling check tools or any preconditions (e.g. paper must have references parsed first), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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