export_bibtex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine piece of context beyond that: entries are generated in code, so output is exact and reproducible. It says nothing about the maximum of 20 ids or how invalid ids are handled.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the reproducibility note second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is modest but real: batching limits, error behavior on unknown ids, and any hint about when to reach for this over the sibling tools.

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% with a single, well-documented `paper_ids` array, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format hints (e.g. where ids come from) and does not mention the 20-item cap, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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: "Generate BibTeX entries for papers." That is clearly distinct from the discovery-oriented siblings (search_papers, get_citations), though the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The reader must infer that this is the export/citation-format step from the tool name alone; nothing says what happens with unknown or duplicate ids, or when another tool (e.g. get_paper_details) would be the better choice.

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