verify_reference_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the return format (JSON verification report with parsed fields and matching) and mentions a manual-review workflow for unresolved cases. It does not specify rate limits or authentication needs, but as a verification tool, the details are adequate.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes structured sections for scope and parameters. It is slightly verbose with version details that may not be essential, but remains well-organized 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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, purpose, and return format. It may lack error handling details or processing limits, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section provides clear, meaningful descriptions for all three parameters (e.g., 'Plain-text references, ideally one per line' for reference_text). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Verify a plain-text reference list against PubMed evidence,' specifying the verb (verify), resource (reference list), and target (PubMed). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_article_references' and 'find_citing_articles' by focusing on verification of a list rather than fetching individual citations.

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 provides clear context by delineating first and second version scopes, implying appropriate use for plain-text list verification. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparisons to sibling tools, which would raise it to a 5.

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