format_bibliography

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses additional behavior: entries are de-duplicated by URL, ordered deterministically, and produce byte-identical output with no network or timestamps. It also explains the return format (string plus entry count). This goes well beyond the structured metadata, and it does not contradict 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 compact (three sentences) but packs in purpose, input modes, behavior, alternatives, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

With annotations covering safety and idempotency, an output schema, and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description nonetheless adds important operational details: input source alternatives, de-duplication, deterministic output, and when to use sibling tools. It is fully sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation in the given context.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context: it clarifies the mutual exclusivity of sessionId versus sources, explains the doi field's role in preserving persistent IDs from academic_search/citation_graph, and groups styles by human-readable vs interchange formats. This is a clear value-add 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 immediately states the tool's function: 'Turn a set of sources into a formatted bibliography.' It specifies the resource (sources) and verb (format), and distinguishes from siblings by naming research_export and verify_citation as alternatives for different needs. This is a specific, actionable purpose.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: '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 the two valid input modes (sessionId or explicit sources) and the style categories (human-readable vs interchange), giving the agent a complete usage picture.

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