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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by explaining what the generated URL is (ARK when confirmed, otherwise DOI) and the deliberate policy of omitting unreliable DOIs rather than guessing. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it does not address any failure modes for the identifier lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and supported formats in the first sentence, then the URL caveat. No filler, though the second sentence addresses output detail that borders on schema/output-schema territory.

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 formatting need not be described. The description is complete for a single-resource formatter: it names the formats, the identifier source, and the URL construction policy. Only explicit routing versus siblings 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (format enum, identifier) are already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the format list and points back to get_paper's identifier syntax, adding only marginal value over the structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (format) and resource (a citation for one paper) plus the three supported output formats. This is clearly distinguishable from get_paper (metadata retrieval) and search_papers without opening any 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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need a formatted citation for a single known paper. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools, though the reference to 'the same identifiers as get_paper' hints at the relationship.

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