bibtex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it confirms it returns verified entries, warns against inventing citations, and specifies that unknown keys produce an empty entry plus close matches. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent handle edge cases.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and usage are front-loaded, the warning about inventing citations is prominent, and the unknown-key behavior is stated concisely. 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?

For a simple lookup tool with an output schema (not shown) and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, how to invoke it (with an example), and the edge-case behavior. 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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds an example bib key ('callaway2021difference') and clarifies that multiple keys can be passed, which reinforces the keys parameter. It does not explain the other parameters (detail, as_handle, etc.), but they are well-documented in the schema, so the description adds marginal value.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('verified BibTeX entries from paper.bib'), and includes an example key. It is unambiguously distinct from the statistical siblings; the only related tool, bib_for, is not mentioned, but the description's citation-specific scope makes it stand apart.

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?

It gives a strong usage directive: 'NEVER invent citations -- call this tool instead.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it (whenever a citation is needed) and implies when not to (do not fabricate). It also mentions the behavior for unknown keys, which guides error handling. It does not name an alternative tool, but the context is clear.

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