get_bibtex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two output channels (file plus inline), that entries derive from publisher metadata via DOI content negotiation, that errors are included in the output so author names should be verified, that DOI-less papers get a minimal entry marked with a note, and the 200-identifier cap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact (identifier types, metadata source, fallback, limit) with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back; it covers both the .bib file and the inline return, the error-inclusion behavior, and the fallback entry format, leaving nothing material unstated for a one-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the identifiers field. The description repeats the accepted formats without adding new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: producing BibTeX entries for a list of papers, written to a .bib file and returned inline. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like resolve_identifier or search_scopus, which do not emit BibTeX.

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?

Explains the accepted identifier types (DOIs, Scopus IDs/EIDs, OpenAlex work IDs) and the fallback path for items without DOIs, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not, however, explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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