format_bibliography

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: de-duplication by URL, deterministic ordering (byte-identical output), and that it makes no network calls or timestamps. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 relatively concise given the amount of context, and it front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter. Still well-structured.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers input methods, behavioral guarantees, sibling tool relationships, and usage context thoroughly. Nothing essential 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains style usage (human-readable vs interchange), clarifies that doi should be passed from academic_search/citation_graph, and specifies that each source entry needs at least a url. This adds clear 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 the tool turns sources into a formatted bibliography, specifying style options (apa, mla, bibtex, ris, csl-json) and input methods. It distinguishes itself from siblings like research_export (narrative report) and verify_citation (citation confirmation), as explicitly noted.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (build a references section) and contrasts with sibling tools: 'Use research_export for the full narrative report and verify_citation to confirm a citation before you rely on it; this builds the citations section.' It also explains how to source inputs via sessionId or explicit list, referencing academic_search or citation_graph.

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