Phenomenai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Supports multiple citation formats' which adds useful context about capabilities, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid term names. The description provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with purpose statement first, usage guidance second, and parameter details in a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second when to use it, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and the description covers both parameters thoroughly, it's reasonably complete for a citation formatting tool. The main gap is lack of behavioral context around errors, limits, or authentication. For a relatively simple formatting tool with output schema, the description provides adequate context, though could benefit from mentioning what happens with non-existent terms.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters. It clarifies that name_or_slug accepts either term name or slug with examples, and enumerates all valid format options with their default. This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format differences or provide examples of output for each format.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Return a formatted citation') and resource ('AI Dictionary term'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookup_term or search_dictionary that retrieve term information rather than format citations. The opening sentence directly communicates the core function without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when you want to reference a term in conversation with a proper citation and link.' This clearly distinguishes it from other dictionary tools that serve different purposes like looking up definitions or searching terms. The context is specific and actionable.

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