Verifikasi kutipan hukum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful scope (which citation types are checked) but does not disclose any behavioral details beyond that, such as whether it queries live sources or how it handles ambiguous citations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action verb and lists the key objects. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, safe annotations, and a single parameter, so much context is already structured. The description adequately conveys what the tool does and what input is expected. It could be more explicit about when to use it versus siblings, but that gap is already scored under usage guidelines.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying that the 'text' parameter is the draft containing the citations ('dalam draf'), which gives the parameter contextual meaning. However, it never explicitly explains the parameter's expected content, format, or any constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 clear verb ('Periksa' / Check) and a specific resource: citations in a draft, enumerating the types checked (references, validity status, articles, court decisions, fatwas). It is clear and specific, and the unique focus on 'draf' (draft) helps distinguish it from siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 its use case: verifying legal citations mentioned in a draft. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_source_status, lookup_article, or analyze_uploaded_document, and it does not state any exclusions or conditions.

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