In text citation

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

The annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: DOI/ISBN lookup fills in authors and year, and DOI and ISBN are mutually exclusive. It still does not describe the return format or lookup failure behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded and reasonably sized, with the purpose and key behavior stated first and an example at the end. The explicit input list partly repeats the schema, but it earns its place by adding meaning such as author formatting and style aliases.

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 seven-parameter citation generator with no output schema and many sibling tools, the description covers inputs, styles, form, and the DOI/ISBN exclusivity constraint. It omits explicit sibling routing and does not state what the return value looks like, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting among citation tools.

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?

With 57% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully supplements the schema by explaining author family/given names, parenthetical versus narrative form, accepted styles, and DOI/ISBN lookup behavior. Parameter names page and year remain unexplained beyond their names, but the overall semantic coverage is good.

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 identifies a specific output, an in-text citation, and adds the optional page number and narrative form. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool from a bibliography generator, but it never explicitly names or contrasts itself with siblings such as format_citation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains that the user can provide authors and year, or a DOI or ISBN, and that DOI and ISBN cannot be combined, plus gives an example prompt. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over format_citation, format_bibliography, cite_from_doi, or cite_from_isbn, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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