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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by noting 'Keyless' (no authentication needed) and identifying Semantic Scholar as the data source. It also discloses the output fields (titles, authors, year, citation counts), giving the agent concrete expectations beyond the safety profile.

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 three focused sentences: core function and output fields, usage contexts, and the keyless note. It is front-loaded with the primary definition, and every sentence earns its place without filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the source, states what the tool returns, and covers keyless access. Minor omissions like error handling or edge-case behavior are acceptable given the low complexity and the schema covering the remaining details.

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 the schema already documents paper_id formats and the limit default/max. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('papers that CITE a given paper'), explicitly framing it as a 'Semantic Scholar cited-by lookup.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_paper and search_papers, which focus on paper retrieval or general search rather than forward citation tracing.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'cited-by papers', 'who cites this paper', 'papers that cite X', 'forward citation tracing', and 'finding follow-up work.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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