batch_verify_citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the processing behavior (auto-parsing law names/article numbers, item-by-item verification), the concurrency constraint (serial to avoid blocking), and the output (a verification table with verified/pending markers). This meaningfully exceeds a generic 'verify citations' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concrete example, constraints, processing behavior, and output usage. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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's moderate complexity (single array parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: input format, constraints, behavior, and return purpose are all covered. It could be more explicit about error handling or invalid citations, but what is provided is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 for parameters is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully does: it provides an exact example of the expected array format, clarifies that each string is a law citation, and specifies the maximum batch size of 8 items. This gives the agent everything needed to construct the parameter correctly.

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 states a specific verb+resource: '批量核验引用' (batch-verify citations), and provides a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as verify_law_article_tool by emphasizing batch processing and parsing each citation, making the tool's exact role clear.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a list of citations needs batch verification, with a maximum of 8 items. It also states that it serves the citation verification skill's labeling workflow. It does not explicitly exclude single-article verification or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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