Export citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the export is returned as text, but it does not go beyond that into details like output encoding or large-export behavior; adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and format choices, and no filler. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 read-only export tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key decision (format/style) and return type, while the schema documents itemKeys, groupId, locale, and constraints completely.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping formats into machine-readable vs formatted bibliography and giving concrete style examples, which helps an agent choose format and style without relying on the enum alone.

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 ('Export') and resource ('items') and clarifies that the output is in a citation format. It also stands apart from sibling create/update/search tools as the only citation-export operation in the list.

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 gives concrete format-selection guidance: machine-readable formats vs 'bib' for a rendered bibliography, with style examples like 'apa' and 'ieee'. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but there is no competing export sibling, so the context is clear without exclusions.

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