inspire_bibtex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on invalid identifiers. For a fetch tool, such details are missing.

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 sentences front-load the purpose and key guidance with no extraneous words. Every sentence 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?

Given that there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers inputs and use case well. However, it could mention that only the first matching entry is returned or error behavior.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'identifier' accepts an INSPIRE record id or arXiv id, and provides concrete examples (1748602, 2301.08096). This adds significant clarity beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'official BibTeX entry', and the source 'INSPIRE-HEP'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arxiv_fetch and inspire_search by focusing on bibliographic entry retrieval.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Always use this for bibliography entries — never write BibTeX by hand.' It tells when to use and when not to, but does not directly compare to siblings like arxiv_fetch.

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