format_citation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the three output formats with examples, indicating that the tool transforms a citation string into a standard formatted string. It does not mention behavior for invalid input or edge cases, but for a pure formatting operation this is a minor gap. The description is transparent about its main function.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, then lists the three formats in a compact list, and ends with an explicit when-not-to-use note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan.

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 formatting tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the input (a citation), the output formats, and when not to use it. The examples imply the return value is a string. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return type or behavior for invalid inputs, but given the tool's simplicity and the clear format examples, the description is nearly complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for each enum value of 'format' (e.g., 'Laki 1050/2018 3 luku 5 §', '1050/2018 3:5', '3 luku 5 §'). This helps the agent understand the expected output format without opening the schema. The 'citation' parameter is already described in the schema, but the examples enrich the semantics of the 'format' parameter.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Format a Finnish legal citation per standard conventions.' It lists the three output formats with concrete examples, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_citation (which checks existence) and search_case_law (which searches). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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 explicitly provides a 'When NOT to use' section: 'If you want to check whether a citation exists in the database, use validate_citation instead.' This gives a clear exclusion and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others. The format examples also implicitly clarify when each output style is appropriate.

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