export_citations

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds significant behavioral context: uses authoritative metadata, never model-generated fields, preserves version suffixes, deterministic keys, and returns status/error per paper. No contradictions 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides value: first sentence defines the action and data source, second covers edge cases and limitations. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter input, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, data source, behavior (deterministic keys, version handling), return content, and format limitation. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'paper_ids' is fully described in the input schema (format, constraints). The description adds context about using authoritative metadata but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it exports BibTeX citations using authoritative arXiv metadata. The verb 'export' and resource 'BibTeX citations' are specific, and the scope (arXiv papers, authoritative metadata) differentiates it from siblings like download_paper or get_abstract.

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 'BibTeX only; RIS/CSL-JSON are not yet supported,' providing a key limitation. It implies when to use this tool (when BibTeX is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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