match_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive return semantics the annotations cannot convey: the four outcome classes (exact, normalised, close, none), the similarity score, the section/page locator, and the W3C TextQuoteSelector, plus advice to quote the source's own words on a 'close' result.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose and accepted sources come first, with the return categories and the 'before citing' directive layered after.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of result types, similarity score, locator and TextQuoteSelector is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the response. Combined with usage and source semantics, nothing material is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by expanding what 'source' accepts – 'a paper (any ID read_paper takes) or a web page URL' – tying the paper-ID namespace to a sibling tool, and by framing the quote as the thing being verified.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (quote against its source), and names the two source kinds it accepts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_paper or read_paper, which retrieve rather than verify.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'before citing a definition or a claim', giving a concrete decision point. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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