CiteMe

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: results may be cached for six hours, usage may be logged, and the input is not published or stored to an account. This complements the readOnly and idempotent hints without contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and efficiently covers important caveats about caching, logging, and privacy without unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output types, and behavioral caveats well. It lacks explicit return format details, but the overall context is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the parameter 'text' with a clear description, so the tool description adds no additional semantic value for parameters. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool verifies a user-provided bibliography against scholarly sources and returns match status, identifiers, and citation issues. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from siblings like format_citation and search_citations.

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 usage for verifying bibliographies but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are present but not referenced in the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: result may be stored in an operational cache, and it does not publish content or modify user accounts. This goes beyond annotations to clarify side effects.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. All sentences add value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and side effects. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., the formatted citation string), which would be helpful since no output schema is provided. Minor gap prevents a 5.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already documents. It references title, authors, year, etc., but provides no extra parameter-level meaning. 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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Format citation data... into a specific citation style.' It names the resource (citation data) and the specific transformation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_citations or check_references.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate (formatting citation data into a style) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. Context is sufficient to differentiate from siblings without explicit guidance.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that resolved works may be merged into CiteMe's shared catalog and operational caches, and explicitly states it does not publish content or modify a user account. This is meaningful behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations, which already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core function, and the second efficiently covers side-effect transparency. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, searchable fields, output type (formatted citations), and an important side-effect caveat. It does not explain the returned citation structure, but the schema covers parameter defaults and enums, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description reinforces query semantics by naming topic/title/author/DOI/ISBN and the output as formatted citations, but it does not add syntax or parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Search') plus a clear resource ('scholarly sources'), and enumerates query dimensions (topic, title, author, DOI, ISBN) with a concrete result ('return matching works as formatted citations'). This distinguishes it from siblings like format_citation and check_references, which have different primary actions.

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?

Usage is implied through the description: it is for finding scholarly sources and getting formatted citations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like format_citation or check_references, nor does it include exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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