get_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states basic function ('get citation data') and implies a read operation, but offers no details on error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output structure. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence and is front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context. It earns its place as a concise summary but does not provide enough detail to be considered excellent.

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 presence of multiple sibling tools related to citations and papers, this description lacks contextual clues for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not mention return format, usage constraints (e.g., 'either paperId or paperIds must be provided'), or distinguish it from similar tools. The agent may struggle to use it correctly without external knowledge.

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%, meaning all three parameters (format, paperId, paperIds) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the purpose. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters well.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('citation data for papers') and mentions formats, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_citation_graph or get_citation_stats, which also deal with citation-related data. A fully explicit distinguishing statement would push it to 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_citation_graph or get_paper_references. It does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent receives no contextual help for tool selection.

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