export_citations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful behavioral detail like the max 100 rows and allowed formats, but it does not disclose output behavior or pagination. With the read-only annotation already covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact: one purpose line followed by a terse argument list. Every element adds value, including defaults and constraints, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 low-complexity read-only export tool with an output schema present, the description covers all parameters and core behavior. It could mention when to use it or prerequisites, but given the annotations and output schema, the gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description fully carries parameter semantics. It explains query as search terms, enumerates fmt values with the default 'bibtex', and states rows max at 100. This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Exporte') and a clear resource ('publications') plus the bibliographic formats (BibTeX, EndNote, CSV, TEI). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling search/get/deposit tools, which involve different actions.

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 states the export use case but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_publications, get_publication, or other siblings. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual signals such as 'use this after searching'.

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