format_citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the non-destructive and external-data aspects. However, the description does not disclose that the tool likely fetches article metadata from PubMed, what the return value looks like, or error behavior. It adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Format'.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, 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?

Given the simple 2-parameter shape, full schema documentation, and annotations covering safety and world interaction, the description is largely sufficient. It falls short only by not stating the return format, which is minor for such a 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%, so all parameters are documented. The description reiterates the enumeration of styles already present in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 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?

Description names a specific verb 'Format', a precise resource 'citation for a PubMed article', and enumerates the four supported styles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/retrieval tools.

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 implies usage when a formatted citation is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_pubmed or get_abstract, nor does it mention prerequisites such as a valid PMID. Context is implied, not stated.

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