verify_bibliography

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool splits citations, verifies each with DOI-precise and retraction-aware checks, and returns a scored ledger with corrected BibTeX and references. This is thorough for a read-only verification tool.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, how it works, and what it returns. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity of splitting and verifying multiple citations, the description covers input, process, and output (scored ledger, corrected BibTeX, corrected references). An output schema exists, so return values are further explained; the description is complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 adds context by stating the input is 'an entire References/Bibliography block'. It does not specify exact formatting or expected structure, which would be helpful. Baseline 3 with low coverage is justified as the description adds some meaning 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 'Verify an entire References/Bibliography block at once', specifying the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'entire References/Bibliography block'. It distinguishes from sibling tool verify_citation by emphasizing the batch operation over a single citation.

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 implies usage for full bibliography blocks, contrasting with verify_citation for individual citations. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternative tools, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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