validate_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists detection capabilities but does not disclose that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authorization needs, or error handling. 'Bidirectional validation' is clear but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary and no fluff.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention the return format (e.g., list of issues). For a validation tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what the output looks like. The description is incomplete in this regard.

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 100%, and the description adds 'manuscript text' and 'reference objects' context. However, it does not detail the expected structure of reference objects (e.g., fields like author, title, year), which would add value beyond the schema.

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 it performs bidirectional validation between in-text citations and references, listing specific issues (orphan citations, missing references, malformed entries, DOI issues). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_citations or analyze_literature.

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 the tool is for citation validation but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like format_references_apa7 or generate_citation_network. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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