bib_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral nuance. It doesn't mention the caching behavior via as_handle, the effect of detail levels, or any side effects. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description fails to add beyond that.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is too sparse to be useful for an agent. For a tool with seven parameters and meaningful choices (detail levels, as_handle), a bit more guidance would be warranted without becoming verbose. It is not wordy, but it under-delivers.

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 tool's many parameters and the sibling context (e.g., bibtex), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain when to use this vs. bibtex, nor the significance of detail levels or as_handle. While an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), an agent still lacks guidance on invocation choices.

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?

All seven parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters itself, but the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's brevity doesn't detract from parameter clarity.

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 states a clear action: providing a structured citation for a fitted result. It identifies the resource (fitted result) and the output (citation). However, 'top-level' is ambiguous and doesn't distinguish well from sibling tools like bibtex, which may also generate citations. Still, it conveys the core purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bibtex, brief_result). No mention of entry conditions, required prior steps, or when the different detail levels would be appropriate. The description is purely a statement of what it does, lacking any 'when' or 'when not' context.

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