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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world status, yet the description still adds real operational context: statelessness, a 32 KB payload cap, 60 RPM rate limit, demo mode vs L402 payment (10 sats), and an HTTP 400 failure mode. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and formats before the operational parenthetical. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the format list is duplicated from the title and the DOI-resolution behavior could be folded more tightly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description instead covers the things an agent cannot infer — input size limit, rate limit, auth/payment paths, and error behavior. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: the default value of 'citation_style' ('bibtex_format') and the 32 KB ceiling that constrains 'source_content_or_doi'. The 'include_abstract' parameter is left entirely to the schema, keeping this below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Formats academic paper metadata and DOI identifiers into standard scholarly citation formats,' and enumerates the concrete output formats. It also names a sibling tool (summarize_temporal_timeline) to contrast against, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering contexts — generating bibliographies, validating journal references, resolving DOIs — and an explicit redirect to summarize_temporal_timeline for timeline work. The named alternative is somewhat tangential to citation formatting, but the when-to-use guidance itself is unambiguous.

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