get_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly warns against inferring or inventing fields, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It implies a read-only resolution operation, though it does not discuss error cases or access requirements.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main behavior is stated first, and the critical constraint about not inventing fields is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys exactness and provenance, though it could have explicitly referenced search_references as the way to discover citation IDs.

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%, so the description needed to compensate, but it mostly restates the parameter name: 'citation ID' appears in both the description and the schema property. It does not explain the ID format, where it originates, or how to validate it.

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 states a specific action—'Resolve one citation ID'—and a specific resource ('exact stored passage and known provenance'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling search_references by narrowing to lookup-by-ID rather than search.

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 implies the tool should be used when the caller already has a citation ID and needs the exact stored passage, but it does not explicitly mention search_references or state when to prefer one over the other. The guidance 'Do not infer or invent fields' is behavioral rather than usage-oriented.

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