export_bibliography

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: missing keys are silently omitted, unknown styles raise an error, and the return type varies by format. This adds substantial context about error handling and output structure, going well 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?

The description is well-organized with a clear opening summary followed by a structured breakdown of each parameter. It is detailed yet every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output content for each format, including types and examples. It covers edge cases (missing keys, unknown styles) and the tool's behavior in different contexts, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: keys (with source reference), style (with examples and ignored conditions), and format (with detailed behavior for each value). It also clarifies the return structure, making the parameters highly understandable.

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 the tool's function: 'Generate formatted bibliography/citation entries or portable export data for one or more items.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the read-only nature is explicitly noted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_item or get_item.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the available formats and when style is used/ignored. It also references search_items/get_item for obtaining keys, implying a workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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