Get Citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it can operate without an API key under a certain condition and returns a JSON envelope prefixed with [OK] or [ERROR]. It doesn't go into error scenarios or rate limits, but it adds value beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: output definition, usage guidance, exclusions with alternatives, and auth/response format. The most important information is front-loaded, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format, citation fields, auth condition, and routing to alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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% for both parameters (query, max_results). The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Return academic references for a query as BibTeX citations with title, authors, year, venue, and URL.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by excluding general web search and claim verification, so an agent can uniquely identify this tool's purpose.

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 description clearly states when to use ('Use when scholarly writing needs a reference list') and when not to use it, naming alternatives ('use web_search', 'use verify_claims'). Minor deduction because the alternatives are shortened names rather than the exact sibling tool names (infobroker_web_search, infobroker_verify_claims), which could cause an agent to look for a nonexistent tool.

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