verify_citation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses fallback to web search and explicit retraction handling ('a retracted paper is never quietly treated as verified'), which are key behaviors. However, it does not mention authentication needs or rate limits.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the purpose and key behavior, with no wasted words.

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 an output schema (so return format is covered) and only two parameters (one required), the description adequately covers verification scope, data sources, fallback, and retraction handling, making it complete for its purpose.

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%, meaning the description adds no explanation for parameters. The only parameter implicitly mentioned is 'citation', but 'max_results' is not described. The schema provides titles and defaults, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what is already in the JSON 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's action ('Verify an academic citation'), specifies the resources (OpenAlex and Crossref with fallback to web search), and distinguishes it from siblings like verify_bibliography, verify_claims, and verify_stat by focusing on citation verification and retraction detection.

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 verifying a single citation and mentions fallback behavior, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide guidance on selecting among sibling tools such as verify_bibliography, verify_claims, or verify_stat.

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