enhance-citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine content-fidelity guarantee beyond the annotations: metadata is preserved and authors/awards/keywords are never fabricated. It stops short of describing normalization scope (e.g., field ordering, escaping) or input size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the limitation/alternative following in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Scope, constraints and the verify-citation handoff are present; the remaining hole is the unexplained 'template' option, which is the one thing an agent must decide before invoking.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. The 'template' enum (default vs compact) and its formatting consequences are entirely unexplained, and the required 'bibtex' string's expected content/limits are left to inference. This is a clear case where the description should have compensated for the schema gap and did not.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Normalize BibTeX formatting') and immediately bounds the operation ('while preserving supplied metadata'). It differentiates the tool from verify-citation by delegating fact-checking there. The only friction is the name 'enhance-citation' implying content addition, which the description partially counters with 'Does not invent authors, awards or keywords.'

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to a sibling: 'Use verify-citation to check facts,' which is a clear when-not condition. It does not, however, state when to reach for enhance-citation over batch-citations or get-citation, so the routing is one-directional rather than a full alternative map.

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