semantic_scholar_export_citation

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that the output is plain text with no response_format option, and lists specific error triggers: unknown ID, paper without citation data, or non-bibtex format. This is valuable behavioral context not covered by 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 three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage, behavior. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 simple citation-export tool with one required parameter, the description covers workflow (use after search/match), input requirements, output format, and error scenarios. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, no further context is needed.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including accepted paper_id formats and the format restriction. The description adds a concrete example ID and reinforces the error on non-bibtex, but doesn't substantially expand parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Export a citation for a paper in BibTeX format.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search/get paper. It also states the output format and prerequisite.

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 explicitly instructs to use it after obtaining a paper ID from semantic_scholar_search_papers or semantic_scholar_match_paper, giving clear upstream context. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative downstream tools.

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