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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing normalization behavior (titles kept as the source provided them, display names split mechanically so author particles may need human review) and what to do on resolution failure — genuinely useful traits not derivable from structured fields.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is rightly omitted, and the tool is read-only so no destructive caveats are needed. However, for a tool whose only real input ambiguity is the identifier, leaving its accepted forms unstated leaves a meaningful gap.

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 enumerates the style values (matching the enum) but never says what form "identifier" takes — DOI, arXiv ID, URL? — which is the single most important thing an agent needs to construct a correct call.

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) plus resource (a real paper) and enumerates the four supported output styles, which cleanly separates it from the sibling read/lookup tools (find_related_papers, get_paper, search_papers). An agent can identify the tool's job without inspecting 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?

It provides a failure-mode rule ("If the paper cannot be resolved, do not hand-write a citation"), which is useful conditional guidance, but never states when to prefer this tool over its siblings or that an identifier must first be obtained. Usage is only implied.

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