get-citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing 'deterministic' output, provenance inclusion, and missing-field warnings, which tell the agent what to expect in the response.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core resolve/export action before the legacy compatibility note. Every clause carries information; 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 structure and missing-field warning format need not be restated. The description covers resolution, formats, and legacy input adequately; the only meaningful gap is the unexplained 'providers' parameter.

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 schema alone provides no parameter meaning. The description compensates for identifier (DOI/namespaced ID), format (three named encodings), and scholar_id (legacy), but says nothing about the 'providers' parameter, leaving one of four parameters unexplained.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Resolve a DOI or namespaced ID' and 'export ... BibTeX, RIS or CSL-JSON'. It clearly distinguishes this as a resolve-and-export tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like enhance-citation or verify-citation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative among the ten siblings. Only the passing note that 'Legacy scholar_id remains accepted' hints at any invocation nuance, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over verify-citation or enhance-citation.

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