Get Citations

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains operation without an API key, failure behavior when all sources are unreachable (returning an [ERROR] envelope with remediation), and respect for provider rate limits. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 well-organized and front-loads the core purpose and usage. Some redundancy exists with the schema parameter descriptions, but the added context (rate limits, error envelope, output format) justifies the length.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return format (BibTeX citation fields and JSON envelope with [OK]/[ERROR] prefixes), error behavior, rate-limit handling, and parameter semantics. This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result 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?

The schema already describes both parameters, and the description reinforces them with practical semantics: query should be natural language, max_results bounds the list, and larger values take longer and span more sources. This adds useful guidance without conflicting with 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 clearly states that the tool returns academic references as BibTeX citations with title, authors, year, venue, and URL. It also specifies the intended use case (scholarly writing needing a reference list) and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, along with direct when-not-to-use instructions that name the correct alternatives (infobroker_search_web for general web search, infobroker_verify_claims for contested claims). This leaves no ambiguity about selecting this tool.

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