Cite NEON data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it follows NEON's data policy (CC BY 4.0), defaults to the newest release with a DOI, and notes that provisional data has no DOI. It also tells the agent to archive what was used, which is a meaningful behavioral instruction 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key distinctions (release, provisional, prototype), followed by a practical next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient for an agent scanning for purpose and usage.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description covers the main use cases and the policy context, but it doesn't detail the output format beyond 'citation text and BibTeX' (though the output schema likely covers this). It also doesn't explain edge cases like what happens if no release is found, but the schema and annotations carry much of the burden. Overall, it's complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds context for the 'release' parameter (defaults to newest with a DOI) and clarifies the 'provisional' parameter (no DOI, not with an explicit release). It also explains the 'prototype_uuid' parameter's purpose. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions and helps the agent understand the citation-specific semantics.

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 purpose: generating NEON-format citation text and BibTeX for a data product in a release, provisional data, or prototype dataset. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on citation generation rather than data retrieval or search, and it names the specific resource types it covers.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: for citing data products in releases, provisional data, or prototypes. It also provides a next-step instruction ('include the citation with any results') and directs the agent to a guide for rules, which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes it clear this is the citation-specific tool.

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