export_bibliography

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral fact that this is pure formatting of supplied metadata with no verification or lookup performed, which prevents misuse. It says nothing about failure modes (malformed entries), whether unknown fields are preserved or dropped, or what the tool returns.

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?

One compact sentence with the capability first and the exclusion second — well front-loaded and zero waste. It is telegraphic to the point that some useful detail was likely cut, but nothing present is padding.

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, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials of what it does and what it does not do. It is still thin on the expected shape of the input records and on the return value, which an agent must handle blind since no output schema exists.

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 must compensate. It does spell out the three legal format values, which the schema does not (no enum is declared), giving real meaning to output_format. But 'supplied metadata' only gestures at the structure of the required papers array, and the default of bibtex is left to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (export) plus the resource (supplied metadata) and enumerates the three serialization targets, BibTeX/RIS/CSL-JSON. The 'NOT scientific verification' clause clearly separates it from the verify_*/check_* siblings, though it does not distinguish it from export_evidence.

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 negative clause signals when not to reach for it (anything requiring validation or verification), which is genuinely useful routing. But there is no positive statement of when to use it, no prerequisite that metadata must already be gathered, and no pointer to export_evidence as the alternative for evidence artifacts.

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