format_citation

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavioral context: 'no database lookup, no validation.' This tells the agent the tool has no side effects, performs no data retrieval, and won't validate existence. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately clarifying scope, limitations, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, behaviors, formats, and alternative for validation. It provides a complete picture for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 the bar is lower, but the description enriches parameter meaning by expanding the format enum values: 'full (formal), short (abbreviated), and pinpoint (with subsection).' This provides semantic clarity beyond the schema's basic 'full, short, or pinpoint' description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool formats Dutch legal citations, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'Pure formatting — no database lookup, no validation' and points to validate_citation for validation, making it unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance by defining the scope as pure formatting, and explicitly directs the agent to 'Use validate_citation instead if you need to verify the citation actually exists.' This is a clear exclusion and alternative, meeting the highest standard.

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