Parse Citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — native template support for en/fr/de/es/it/pt Wikipedias — but omits what happens for unsupported languages, how non-template (plain-text) citations are handled, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or any result-size considerations.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the returned-field inventory is front-loaded where an agent will see it first. The only inefficiency is that the opening is a noun phrase rather than an action statement.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return columns. What it lacks is disambiguation from parse_all_citations/extract_citations and any statement about failure modes for unsupported languages, which leaves a real ambiguity for an agent choosing among siblings.

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 three parameters (lang, date_limit, article_name) are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics — the field list describes return columns, not inputs — 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 specifies the output shape precisely (one row per citation template, listing doi/isbn/pmid/url/title/author/year/journal/publisher/accessdate), which implies extraction of citations from a Wikipedia article. However, it never states the action with a verb — 'Structured citation table' is a noun phrase relying on the tool name — and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as parse_all_citations, extract_citations, or get_citation_types.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any of the many sibling tools. An agent reading this cannot tell why it should call parse_citations rather than parse_all_citations or extract_citations — a significant gap given the dense sibling set.

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