get_citation

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the source list is returned 'in full' while other tools return only a count, which is useful context, but it says nothing about what happens when a selection matches no sources or a variable lacks a passport entry.

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?

Front-loaded with the return content, then a clarifying contrast in the second sentence. The em-dash parenthetical is a bit convoluted but every clause carries meaning and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and the distinction from count-only sources. For an 8-parameter, read-only lookup this is close to complete, with only edge-case behavior left unstated.

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 baseline would be 3; the description goes slightly beyond by framing the optional parameters as a 'selection (stations, a time window, a box)' and explaining that they determine which data objects are listed in full. That gives semantic intent to the optional filters rather than just restating field types.

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 concretely what the tool returns: citation text, licence and DOI from a variable's data passport, plus the full list of underlying data objects. It implicitly distinguishes itself from data-answer tools that carry only a short citation and a source count, giving an agent a clear sense of the resource without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the contrast 'Data answers carry a short citation and only the COUNT of their sources; this lists them', which suggests calling this when full provenance is needed. However, no sibling tool is named (e.g. get_data, describe_variable) and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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