verify_citation_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses live sources, the exact verdict vocabulary, the returned components (canonical record, diffs, suggested corrected citation, sources checked), and explains that not_found means unable to verify rather than proof of fabrication. This prevents misinterpreting a negative 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then input modes, then return value, then caveats. Every sentence adds functional value and there is no repetition of schema properties 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?

Even without an output schema, it covers the main return values and the critical not_found caveat, and it is explicit about scope (existence/metadata verification, not claim support). It does not detail the exact shape of per-field diffs or the ambiguous verdict, but the tool can be invoked correctly from this definition.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key distinction between raw_text and structured fields and names all seven parameters, which is helpful. But it gives no format guidance (e.g., author list format, DOI form, arxiv_id form) and doesn't clarify behavior when both raw_text and structured fields are supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify ONE citation against live scholarly sources (OpenAlex/Crossref/arXiv).' It also distinguishes this tool from claim-support siblings by stating evidence and full-text inputs belong to those tools, not to existence/metadata verification.

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?

It clearly explains the input mode ('either a free-text citation in raw_text, or structured fields') and gives an explicit when-not: evidence/full-text inputs belong to claim-support tools. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool like check_claim_support_tool, only the category, so the routing is slightly less direct.

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