Parse All Citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It conveys the output row shape, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about scope (does it parse entire article or a section?), failure modes for missing templates, or limits.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. Because no output schema exists, spending the sentence on the return shape is reasonable, though front-loading the tool's action would have been stronger.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's return-format note partially fills that gap, but the absence of any purpose/usage guidance for a 3-parameter parsing tool leaves it only partially complete.

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 lang, date_limit, and article_name are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description describes the output shape (a long-form table with variable/value/canonical_field rows) but never states the action explicitly or distinguishes this tool from close siblings like parse_citations, extract_citations, or parse_cite_type. An agent can roughly infer it parses citations, but the core 'what' is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling parsing tools. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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