format_validated_reference

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful precondition ('accepted validation status') but does not disclose what happens for invalid/unaccepted metadata, what output is produced, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects.

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 a single focused sentence with no redundant words. The key constraint is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotationsable output schema custody and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify what 'format' produces, which status values count as accepted, and how errors are handled. An agent would need to guess or inspect other context.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning for 'style' or 'include_doi_url'. It only loosely maps 'metadata' to the required 'validated_reference' property, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for parameter behavior.

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 ('Format') and a resource ('metadata that has an accepted validation status'), which clearly distinguishes it from validation/discovery siblings. It stops short of saying what formatting output looks like, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 phrase 'only metadata that has an accepted validation status' gives a clear precondition and implies this tool should follow validation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer another sibling tool.

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