Generate citation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It explains the output action (generating a citation) and the source (ledger entry), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what happens with invalid input. This leaves some ambiguity around the tool's behavior.

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 a single, 17-word sentence that gets straight to the point. Nothing is redundant; every clause contributes meaning.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, input requirements, and allowed formats. It does not explicitly state the return value, but the title 'Generate citation' and the phrase 'Generate a citation' imply the output. This is adequate for a relatively simple tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (format with an enum and default, and receipt as an object from the seal tool). The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 function: generating a citation for a sealed receipt in specific formats (APA, BibTeX, MLA) and mentions the APEX PSI ledger entry. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit, seal, verify, and anchor, none of which are citation-related.

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 defines the use case: it is for sealed receipts, which implies the user must have a sealed receipt (likely from the seal tool). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for the listed siblings.

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