Not enough - you’d also need to check that they say/mean what is being implied. Which is a real problem.

To be fair, that's a problem with human authors too. Wikipedia is really well-cited, but it's common to check a citation and find it only says half of what a sentence does, while the rest seemingly has no basis in fact. Judges are supposed to actually read the citations to not only confirm the case exists and says what's being claimed, but often to also compare & contrast the situations to ensure that principle is applicable to the case at hand.