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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds little behavioral detail beyond the core action of returning a citation. It doesn't mention defaults, error behavior, or output shape, but the annotation reduces the burden. This is acceptable but unremarkable.

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 and result. It avoids redundancy and includes only essential details about supported styles. Minor grammar issue ('a Anxiety') does not detract from its concise, effective structure.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return type ('formatted citation') and scope. It could mention the default style or clarify the relationship to get_article, but the current description is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Article slug' and 'Citation style'). The description reinforces the supported styles but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('formatted citation') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_article, which would retrieve content. It also names the supported styles (AMA, APA, Chicago), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool (when a formatted citation is needed) and gives context about supported styles. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is obvious from the purpose, especially alongside the sibling tool list.

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