Format Citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the concrete transformation rules (surname casing, quote wrapping, indentation/font for long quotes). However, it says nothing about side effects, determinism, or that it is a pure formatter, so the transparency is partial rather than complete.

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 standard is front-loaded and the three bullets each carry a distinct rule with concrete examples. It is efficient, though the examples are somewhat verbose relative to the information gained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the formatting rules are well covered. But for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, key parameters like page and target_format remain unexplained, leaving the definition incomplete.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It implicitly illuminates quote_type (short/long/indirect) and style (parentheses vs in-text) through its rules, but says nothing about page, authors, quote_text, or target_format, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 and resource ('Formata chamadas de citação') bound to a named standard (NBR 10520:2023), which lets an agent distinguish it from format_reference. It does not explicitly name the sibling it excludes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 text describes formatting rules but never states when to invoke this tool versus format_reference or validate_citations, both plausible siblings. There are no prerequisites or exclusion conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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