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.