citation_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns and that omitting the slug triggers a listing, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization, network behavior, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is a safe read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the primary return value is stated first, then the usage edge case. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return types, the purpose, and the special no-argument behavior. It does not describe error handling or the shape of the listing response, but these are minor gaps for a simple retrieval tool.

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 input schema already describes the slug as 'publication slug or part of its title' with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that calling with no slug lists available slugs, clarifying the optionality and providing a discovery path beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete deliverable: a 'ready-to-use BibTeX entry and schema.org ScholarlyArticle JSON' for a CatQualia publication. It also mentions DOI resolution and the no-slug listing behavior, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools about claims, verdicts, refutations, and drift.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Call with no slug to list available slugs.' This tells the agent when to omit the parameter and what happens. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the domain difference is obvious enough that exclusion statements are less necessary.

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