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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the vintage-tracked asOf URL, the stable site identifier instead of a DOI, and notes that the payload indicates this lack of DOI. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but it discloses the key behavioral traits.

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 efficiently structured, leading with the core purpose and then layering essential context about the asOf URL and DOI absence. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Same engine as /api/cite' note is a helpful reference without being redundant.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a citation, possibly with an asOf URL, and the catalogue when no dataset is provided). It doesn't detail the exact citation format, but for a citation tool this is a standard and acceptable gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic value by stating that 'dataset' comes from the catalogue and that omitting it returns the catalogue, which helps interpretation but doesn't significantly exceed what the schema describes.

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 it 'Get a ready-to-paste citation for an MFG Calcs dataset', identifying the specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the asOf URL behavior and the lack of a DOI, making its purpose unambiguous even without examining 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to omit the dataset parameter to get the catalogue of citable datasets, which is a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the sibling tools have distinct purposes (e.g., ask, get_calculator), so the appropriate context is clear.

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