substantiate

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 independent attestations from several primary sources and details the output structure. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavior is adequately described but could be more transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a bulleted usage section, and formal Args/Returns sections. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous text.

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 output schema is richly defined in the description, and the tool has only two parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output comprehensively. It does not mention error handling or edge cases like unrecognized phrases, but the confidence field mitigates this. Overall very 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining 'phrase' (any Ukrainian phrase) and 'sources' (optional comma-separated source IDs, default all). This adds meaning beyond the schema, making it clear how to use each parameter.

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 'Get the citation chain for a Ukrainian phrase', which is a specific verb+resource. It lists the sources involved, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check, search, or render, though the uniqueness is implied.

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 includes a bullet list under 'Use this when:' with three explicit use cases (backing up claims, explaining correctness, finding historical attestations). This provides clear guidance on when to invoke the tool, but it does not include when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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