batch-citations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is set. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: per-item failures are preserved rather than failing the whole call, progress is reported, and no durable background task is created despite async-sounding 'progress'.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and capped by the most important caveat (no durable task). No filler.

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 explained, and failure/progress semantics are covered. The main gap is silence on the format and providers parameters, which an agent must discover from the bare schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the 20-identifier ceiling and order preservation, but says nothing about the 'format' enum (bibtex/ris/csl-json) or 'providers' selection, leaving two of three params semantically thin.

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?

States specific verbs (resolve, export) and the resource (identifiers→citations), plus a batch scope of up to 20. It is differentiable from single-item siblings like get-citation, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 'batch of up to 20' framing implies this is the multi-item counterpart to get-citation/enhance-citation, so batch usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, 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.