retraction_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns alerts for newly retracted or no longer verifiable items and explains the two operational modes. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a checking tool, this is acceptable.

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 very concise with two sentences and an introductory line. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It mentions 'alerts' as return type and covers the two usage modes. Given sibling tools' focus on verification, this description is sufficiently complete.

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 has one optional parameter (references) with 0% coverage. Description adds full meaning: passing strings re-verifies specific citations, omitting scans all bundles. This provides clear usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 re-checks previously verified citations for retractions or verification drift. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_citation and verify_bibliography by focusing on re-verification over time.

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 says when to use: to re-check citations for retractions. It provides context on two modes: passing specific references or omitting to scan all bundles. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions, but the purpose is clear.

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