bibliography

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 only states the lookup action and source, without mentioning what the response contains, how the include_taxa/include_figures flags affect results, error behavior, or any access considerations. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose. It is concise rather than simply short, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and sibling ambiguity, the description is incomplete. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave an agent under-equipped to choose and configure this tool correctly.

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 for the three parameters. It only clarifies that lookup is 'by BibObjID', which maps to bib_obj_id, but says nothing about include_taxa or include_figures, leaving their semantics unexplained despite being part of the tool's behavior.

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 names a specific action ('Look up') and a specific resource ('LDL Bibliography of the Neuropterida reference') keyed by BibObjID. It is clear enough to identify what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like taxonomic_references.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as taxonomic_references and figures could plausibly overlap, but the description offers no selection criteria, exclusions, or context about the intended workflow.

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