references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses 'Read-only parse API — GET only, no new dependencies' and 'Follows redirects.' It could go further by specifying handling of missing titles or empty reference lists, but the core side effects and safety profile are clear.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core function, response contents, sibling comparison, use cases, and behavioral notes. It is structured to front-load purpose and then build outward without redundancy or 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned (numbered list with citation text and off-wiki URLs). It also covers safety behavior and use context, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the output, correctly leaving parameter detail to the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns the article's numbered reference list' with details on what each citation includes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool external_links, making its scope unmistakable.

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 names the alternative (external_links), explains the key difference between them, and lists concrete use cases (source verification, citation audits, bibliography building, primary-source discovery). This gives an agent clear guidance on when to select this tool.

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