GetCited is not authenticated

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context that the server is unauthenticated and that other tools are not loaded, which explains why this tool exists. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful context about the state, so it earns above baseline.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the state, the action, and a caution against retrying other tools. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool is for, when to call it, and what to expect (steps). The guidance about other tools is an extra that improves completeness. Nothing is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since there are none. No further explanation needed.

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 the tool provides 'exact steps to fix' the authentication issue, with a specific call to action. It distinguishes itself by being the dedicated tool for this situation, and the name reinforces the purpose. It could be slightly more explicit about returning instructions, but it's unambiguous.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use it: when the server is not authenticated. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Retrying other tools will not help,' preventing wasted attempts on other tools. No alternatives exist (no siblings), so this guidance is complete.

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