verify_citation

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral context by stating the tool is deterministic and not legal assurance. However, it does not disclose what happens when a citation does not exist or any other behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the additional clarification on determinism is concise.

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 has three parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter constraints, leaving significant gaps 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 coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters (law_name, article_no, effective_date). The tool description adds no explanation of these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'citation existence in P0 snapshot', and distinguishes it from legal assurance. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like check_claim_support.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_law or get_article. The description only clarifies it's deterministic, but does not provide when/when-not criteria.

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