check_bibliography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool may perform network calls via the online parameter but does not state whether the check is read-only, whether it mutates the .bib file, what permissions are needed, or how errors from Crossref are surfaced. For a tool combining network calls and file analysis with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that packs the full scope without filler. The enumerative style is efficient, though the absence of punctuation beyond the initial colon makes it slightly dense; it remains readable and non-redundant.

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 described checks are comprehensive for a bibliography audit, matching the complexity of the task. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits how results are returned, whether the tool mutates files, and how it handles network failures, leaving gaps an agent would need to probe.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (keys, online) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the Crossref scope. The description adds only the high-level framing of what online queries cover. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (the bibliography), then enumerates the exact classes of problems it detects: missing keys, unused entries, duplicates, missing DOIs, Crossref mismatches, retractions, and preprint-to-published cases. This is far more specific than any sibling and tells the agent precisely what it audits.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to siblings like scan_uncited or fetch_sources which could overlap with certain checks (unused entries, DOI fetch). The agent must infer that this is the holistic bibliography audit tool.

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