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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral traits beyond that. It does not disclose edge cases, error handling, or limitations. With annotations covering safety, the description adds little value.

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 very short (one sentence, 10 words) and front-loaded with verb and object. It earns its place but could benefit from a bit more detail, such as mentioning the default style or output type.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how the tool resolves citations from URL versus author/work_id, nor does it mention the default style or output format (string). More context would help the agent use it correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already explains the parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool formats a citation of a Hermitsh work or passage in common citation styles, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_passage, get_work) which retrieve content, not format citations. However, it could explicitly list the styles or note that it generates a string.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing at least a url or author+work_id). It simply states the function without context.

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