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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that section ids are deduplicated and include section links, that source ids cite whole works, and that omitting ids returns every library work. It does not discuss limits, error behavior, or output shape in detail.

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 the core action and styles, then the id modes, then the default. Every sentence carries operational information with no repetition.

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 two-parameter, read-only citation formatter with no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors: supported styles, section-vs-source id distinction, deduplication, extra section links, and the no-id default. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of each id type: section ids give deduplicated references plus section links, source ids give whole-work citations, and no ids default to the entire library. The style enum is already covered by the schema, but the ids semantics are substantially clarified.

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 and resource: formatting references for library works in six named citation styles. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search or fetch, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast its role, so it falls short of the top score.

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 clearly explains the three usage modes: section ids produce a deduplicated list with section links, source ids cite whole works, and no ids cite everything. It does not say when to use cite versus siblings such as fetch or search, nor does it state exclusions.

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