Get citations and acknowledgments for sites

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: versioned DOI text, licensing obligations and mixing rules, verbatim acknowledgments, funding statements, data-availability language, processing papers, and optional BibTeX. The read-only, idempotent, open-world annotations are consistent with a citation-retrieval operation.

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 front-loaded with the core resource and remains information-dense without obvious filler. The long parenthetical list of return contents is useful but slightly dense; it could be structured more readably, though it does not waste words.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety behavior, the description supplies enough context about returned citation components, licensing obligations, and follow-up actions. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly and understand the output's purpose.

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%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description reinforces the site limit and product options but adds little semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 clearly states the resource is citations/acknowledgments for up to 50 sites and one product, with concrete returned items. This is a distinct purpose from sibling data-access tools such as amf_get_site or amf_get_badm, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 gives clear usage context through 'Next: cite every site in the reference list and follow the obligations,' which explains what to do with the result. It does not explicitly name when to choose this over alternatives or state exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that usage is well implied.

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