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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the available output formats, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid slugs, rate limits, or the openWorldHint implication that records are looked up externally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully clarifies the return shape (a citation or a full bibliography in one of three formats). But for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, it leaves the required `kind` and `slug` semantics and the failure behavior unexplained.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It does add meaning to `format` (csl-json, BibTeX, RIS) and `target` (publication vs bibliography), but leaves `slug` and `kind` (article vs project) unexplained and does not clarify how they combine.

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 ('Return') and resource ('citation'/'bibliography') and bounds the scope to a maxand98 publication, plus the output formats. What it does not do is note that it is unrelated to sibling tools like get_document or get_claim, though the resource named is distinct enough not to be confused.

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?

'or its complete bibliography' implies the two modes of use but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance: no statement about when to choose a single citation over a full bibliography, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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