Get Paper Citation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether the citation is generated from stored metadata or requires external lookup, whether it's a read-only operation, or whether the output schema provides the full citation structure. The mention of default style 'apa' is a minor behavioral detail but insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence stating purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence is informative and there's no waste. The structure aids quick parsing.

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 the description needn't explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, source of citation data). For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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. It documents both parameters: paper_id as 'The paper ID' and style with valid options ('apa', 'mla', 'chicago', 'ieee', 'bibtex') and the default 'apa'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't clarify what format the paper ID should take.

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 a specific verb and resource: get a formatted citation for a paper. It clearly conveys the tool's function, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings get_citations and get_paper_bibtex, which likely overlap in purpose. That missing differentiation keeps it from 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention get_citations (which might return raw citations) or get_paper_bibtex (which likely returns BibTeX), despite bibtex being listed as a style option here. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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