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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so the description's main value is the caveat that citation links are still loading and empty results should not be read as 'never cited.' That is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations, though broader operational details are absent.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the caveat follows naturally.

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 read-only citation lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition provides what is needed: scope, ordering, and the important caveat about loading citation links. No material gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so identifier, limit, and offset are already well documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for any parameter, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource — papers in the NobleBlocks index that cite a given paper — and adds the sort order. It is clearly distinct from get_references or get_citation by focusing on incoming citations rather than outgoing references or citation details.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_references, get_citation, or search_papers. The only guidance is an empty-result caveat, not usage selection guidance.

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