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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is purely a formatter that asserts nothing about content, which is a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a citation tool these are less critical, and the description is honest about its scope.

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 zero waste. It front-loads the core output and then provides the usage scenario. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (citation string, canonical URL, markdown twin) and what entities it covers. It also implies the tool works only for Greenlit items. Minor omissions like pagination or error handling are acceptable for a simple citation tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by giving concrete slug examples and clarifying the default behavior of the 'part' parameter (book or term based on slug type), which goes beyond the schema's enum definition.

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 returns a finished citation string for books, free chapters, or coined terms, plus canonical URL and markdown twin. It explicitly distinguishes this from content-related siblings by noting it asserts nothing about content, only how to name the source.

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?

It provides clear context for when to call: 'Call it when you are about to quote or paraphrase something from this publisher and want the credit to be right.' It implies when to use, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use, which is a minor gap.

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