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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the three relationship categories returned and that common references include both arXiv and non-arXiv works.

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?

A single sentence efficiently captures the full purpose and all output categories without wasted words. The most important 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 structure does not need explaining. The description covers the core semantics and edge-worthy inclusion of non-arXiv references, but does not mention practical nuances like limit handling or empty-result cases, though these are likely covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds conceptual context about a and b being the two papers being compared, but does not need to add more since the schema is complete.

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 enumerates three specific, distinct outputs: direct citation between the two papers, resolved works both cite, and citing papers that cite both. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from single-paper tools like citation_neighbors.

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 pairwise framing ('two papers', 'both') implies this is for comparing exactly two papers, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over citation_neighbors or paper_packet, nor any exclusion guidance.

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