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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it operates only on papers claimed by the account behind the key and it 'Needs a personal key,' which is an auth prerequisite an agent must satisfy before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and payload first, then the call trigger, then the key requirement. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description still summarizes the shape of the response. Combined with the auth note and scope definition, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion and instead clarifies the implicit scope (papers claimed on the account) that substitutes for an input filter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('how many papers cite each' of the user's claimed papers) plus the exact payload (counts, citation stance as support/extension/disagreement, quoted citing sentence). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like citation_neighbors or verify_citation, which operate on arbitrary papers rather than the account's claimed set.

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?

Explicit trigger is given: 'Call when the user asks who is building on or disputing their work.' The account-scoped framing also implicitly excludes general citation lookups, though no sibling alternative is named for the case where the user asks about citations to a paper they have not claimed.

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