readiness-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses what the tool checks (entry resolution, topic coverage, missing IDs), implying it will validate IDs against arXiv and analyze their topics. It does not state side effects or error handling, but the read-only nature is implicitly clear. The description adds a reasonable amount of behavioral context beyond the name.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, input, and output components. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids waste. Every clause adds value: input specification, output type, and the elements of the summary.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the key components of the summary (resolved entries, topic coverage, missing IDs), giving the agent a clear idea of what to expect. Since the tool has only one parameter and no nested objects, the description is sufficiently complete for context. It could mention the response format (e.g., text vs. structured data), but that is not required for basic invocation.

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 schema description for the single parameter 'paperIds' is 100% covered, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds context ('ids that make up a bibliography') but does not provide new semantic detail about the parameter format beyond what the schema already gives (an array of arXiv ID strings). No further compensation is necessary.

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: given a list of arXiv paper IDs, it produces a citation-readiness summary including resolved entries, topic coverage, and missing IDs. The verb 'produce a citation-readiness summary' is specific and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check-citations by adding 'coverage by topic' and 'missing ids'.

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 implies usage: it is for assessing the readiness of a bibliography from a list of arXiv IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check-citations), nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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