google_scholar_cite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires a specific ID, returns citations and links, and mentions credits not stated. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but as a read-only citation retrieval, this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by notes and return structure. It is slightly long but every sentence provides value. Could be slightly more concise but overall well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes a clear return structure. It provides all necessary information to use the tool correctly, including parameter clarification, return format, and context from sibling tools.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds critical value by clarifying that 'query' is actually a result ID and referencing the id field from google_scholar results, and it explains the 'language' parameter default.

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 it retrieves formatted academic citations (MLA, APA, etc.) and export links using a Google Scholar result ID. This uniquely identifies its function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_scholar (search) and google_scholar_author (author info).

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 specifies when to use (to get citations for a paper given its result ID) and clarifies that the 'query' parameter is a result ID, not free text. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, though the sibling context implies its narrow use case.

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