search_citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns minimal metadata, but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, whether permissions are required, or what side effects (if any) exist. This is insufficient for transparent behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys what the tool does and what it returns.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks context on how it differs from sibling tools like list_bib_resources. The phrase 'minimal metadata' is vague, and without an explanation of limitations or return structure, the agent may not fully understand the tool's scope.

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 input schema has only a 'query' string parameter with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the query is a string searched in any field, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It does not specify format or syntax details, but provides the essential meaning.

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 that the tool searches BibTeX entries for a query string in any field, which specifies the action (search), the resource (BibTeX entries), and the scope (any field). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bib_resources, which likely lists all resources rather than searching.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_bib_resources. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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