Get Citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: no API key required when a scholarly source is reachable, per-provider rate limits, and an [ERROR] envelope with remediation when every source fails. This is meaningful operational context for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage rules, then parameter and failure behavior — a sensible ordering. It is dense (four sentences covering a lot), but every clause carries distinct information rather than restating the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still specifies the return format (BibTeX fields) and the envelope contract ([OK]/[ERROR] with remediation). For a two-parameter, read-only tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns extra credit by clarifying that `query` is a natural-language topic and that larger `max_results` values 'take longer and span more sources' — a latency/coverage tradeoff the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return academic references for a query') plus the exact output shape (BibTeX with title, authors, year, venue, URL). An agent can distinguish this from search_web and verify_claims without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('when scholarly writing needs a reference list') and two exclusions with the sibling to use instead (infobroker_search_web for general web search, infobroker_verify_claims for contested-claim verification). Nothing is left to inference.

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