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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable interpretive context beyond annotations: an edge means the paper names the other work, not that the work supports the citing claim. It also notes that citing sentences appear only 'where a record exists', setting expectations for incomplete data.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core operation ('One hop from a paper'), lists the returned components, and ends with an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and rich annotations, the description is complete for a citation-neighborhood exploration tool. It covers what is returned, the edge semantics, and the conditional presence of citing sentences. No essential calling information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents arxiv_id, limit, and direction. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not attempt to. It gives no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 exactly what the tool returns: one hop from a paper, including reference entries, resolved work identities, citing papers, and citing sentences with labeled intent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record or resolve_paper.

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 phrase 'One hop from a paper' implies this tool is for exploring immediate citation graph neighbors, and the description clarifies what an edge does and does not mean. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like find_passages or paper_bridge, nor does it mention exclusions.

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