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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description redundantly says "Read-only" but adds useful return details: permanent ID, plain-text citation, BibTeX, and fact text/parent note for fact IDs. It does not cover errors, but the read-only nature keeps behavioral risk low.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and accepted inputs, followed by return values and a safety note. Every sentence adds 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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers accepted identifier forms and return contents, including the fact-specific extra outputs. Nothing essential 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?

The sole parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description fully compensates by naming accepted forms: permanent note ID, fact ID, slug, and old slug, including the iil: prefixes.

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 states a specific verb, "Cite", and a specific resource, "one note or one fact", and its citation/BibTeX output distinguishes it from siblings like get_fact and read_note.

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 when a citation is needed and lists accepted ID forms, but it never explicitly compares this tool to get_fact/read_note or states when not to use it.

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