export_citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the exact output encodings and the required ID source ('transport-lit ids'). It does not discuss rate limits or edge cases, but the annotations lower the burden here.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the operation, the output formats, and the key input requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete: annotations cover safety and idempotence, the output schema covers return shape, and the description covers formats and ID source. The main missing piece is guidance for choosing this over sibling citation/retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that ids should be 'transport-lit ids' and that format accepts RIS or BibTeX. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about ID syntax or format case-sensitivity.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Export records as RIS (Zotero/EndNote/Mendeley) or BibTeX.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_citations or get_references. The format list makes the deliverable concrete.

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 only usage guidance is 'Pass transport-lit ids,' which is an operational requirement rather than a when-to-use statement. It does not mention when to choose export_citations over alternatives such as get_citations, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. No alternatives are named.

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