verifyCitation

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists the specific databases checked (CrossRef, OpenAlex, etc.) and states that it 'returns null if not found,' which clarifies the output behavior. Annotations already indicate it's read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those traits, but it enhances understanding with operational details.

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 description is highly concise and well-structured: it starts with a critical warning, states the purpose and usage in a single sentence, lists databases efficiently, and ends with return behavior. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (verifying citations across multiple databases) and the absence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage, databases checked, and return behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which could be useful for full transparency. The annotations cover safety aspects, so it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (title, authors, year, doi, journal), including details like 'partial matches accepted' for title and 'last names sufficient' for authors. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 by not duplicating schema content.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('academic citation'), explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for verifying citations before mentioning them (unlike batchVerifyCitations or findVerifiedPapers), and provides critical context about checking multiple databases. The 'CRITICAL' prefix emphasizes its importance.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('before mentioning [a citation]') and provides clear alternatives by naming sibling tools (batchVerifyCitations, findVerifiedPapers), though it doesn't detail when to use those instead. The 'CRITICAL' label implies it should be used for any citation verification, making the guidance comprehensive.

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