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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the annotation and schema—it simply states what the tool does without disclosing additional traits such as output format or any operational nuances.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and contains only relevant information.

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 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It clearly states the tool's purpose and supported styles, though it does not describe the exact return format—which is arguably unnecessary for a citation string.

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?

Both parameters ('slug' and 'format') are already fully described in the schema with types and enums. The description adds no extra meaning beyond reiterating the supported styles, which is already captured by the format enum. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'formatted citation' and explicitly lists supported styles (AMA, APA, Chicago). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article or search_articles, which serve content retrieval or searching.

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 used when a formatted citation is needed for an Anxiety in Teens article and lists supported styles, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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