Format Citation

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description confirms these ('Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry') and adds substantial context beyond them: vancouver defaulting with an explicit ask-before-defaulting policy, alias resolution reporting styleUsed, batch processing in one round trip, the metadata block appended as a second text content item, rate-limit tiering, and API-key auth requirements (SCHOLAR_API_KEY, RAPIDAPI_KEY). No contradiction with annotations.

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 long (~230 words) but dense — nearly every sentence carries operational information an agent needs (defaults, auth, return shape, sibling routing). It is front-loaded with purpose and usage before diving into details. Slight redundancy exists (identifier formats partially echoed in the schema's text parameter description), but no filler sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape ('one of { text, html, items } depending on the output parameter, followed by a metadata block... appended as a second text content item') and tells the agent to surface it for reproducibility. It covers auth setup, rate-limit behavior, batch semantics, defaults, and all sibling tool boundaries — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value on top by disclosing default behavior (vancouver if unspecified), the disambiguation instruction when style is ambiguous, alias resolution semantics ('harvard' → 'harvard-cite-them-right'), and the output default of text. It also cross-references resolveIdentifier for identifier formats instead of redundantly repeating them, which is efficient enrichment rather than restatement.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Format scholarly identifiers into a finished citation in a specific style.' It then explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings — resolveIdentifier (raw metadata) and exportCitation (downloadable bibliography file) — so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

States exactly when to use it ('Use when the user wants a paste-ready citation string for a manuscript, slide, message, footnote, or in-line reference') and names the alternatives with their selection conditions ('Use resolveIdentifier instead when the user wants raw metadata to inspect or transform; use exportCitation when they want a downloadable bibliography file'). It even adds an ask-the-user rule for ambiguous style variants, which is actionable usage guidance.

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