add_citation

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

Annotations declare the write profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context: this creates a citation that can also spawn a new source, and reuse is preferred over duplication. It does not say what is returned or how to obtain the handle for later reuse, which is the one operational detail left implicit.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste; the core action leads and the routing caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing guidance.

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 single-param create tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is not stating that a citation handle is returned (the thing needed to reuse the citation later), which the description itself makes relevant.

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% and CitationInput already documents the citation/source/source_title precedence and every field. The description only reinforces the reuse-vs-create duality the schema already states, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a standalone Citation on a Source') with the reuse alternative stated in the same sentence. It cleanly separates this tool from the attachment-style siblings (add_person, add_event_to_person, add_family) that are the usual path.

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-not ('Usually you don't call this directly -- pass a CitationInput to add_person / add_event_to_person / add_family instead') and explicit when-to ('when you want a reusable citation handle to attach to several facts'). The routing decision is fully specified.

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