Citation generator

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, but the description goes further and describes the return payload in detail (plain text and HTML with <i> italics, in-text citation, missing-field hints, sorted bibliography, numbered for IEEE). It also discloses edge-case handling such as et al. rules, organisation authors, edition elision and title case, which an agent needs to trust the output.

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?

A dense two-sentence block that front-loads styles and source types before edge-case behaviour and the return shape. It is long but nearly every clause carries information; the trailing web-version URL is the only non-essential element.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return structure and per-style sorting, and it covers the tricky input semantics of a single nested-array parameter. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: author-count rules, initials, organisation-as-author handling, page-range formatting (MLA 127-53), access dates and MLA/Chicago/IEEE title casing. It does not explain the autoCase toggle's interaction with styles in depth.

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+resource: format references in five named styles for eight named source types. No sibling tool overlaps with citation formatting, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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 enumerated styles and source types effectively define when this tool applies, and the web-version URL gives an escape hatch for interactive use. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use for X' or a contrast with an alternative.

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