verify_citation_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states the action without indicating side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. The description is too brief to inform an agent about behavioral outcomes beyond a simple verification.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks bullet points or additional context that would improve usability. It earns a 3 as it is neither overly verbose nor sufficiently informative.

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 (nested object parameter, no parameter descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain input formats, return values (output schema exists but is not discussed), or error scenarios. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.

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 the description does not add any meaning to the 'ref' parameter. It does not explain what 'span-level AssetRef' entails, expected structure, or examples. The agent has no parameter guidance beyond the schema type.

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 specifies the action 'verify' and the resource 'span-level AssetRef against the persisted citation index'. It is clear about what the tool does, though the term 'span-level AssetRef' may be jargon. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'citation_bundle' or 'evidence', but the purpose is adequately stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide to use this tool over siblings like 'find_evidence_spans' or 'document_asset'.

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