get_citations

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

No annotations exist. The description mentions Semantic Scholar but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as rate limits, auth requirements, or the exact return structure (e.g., pagination).

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 concise (two short paragraphs plus Args) and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section is clear, though the overall structure could be slightly more standardized.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description provides adequate context (source, parameter details, purpose). However, it lacks details on return format or potential limits (e.g., rate limiting, pagination).

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 0%, but the description's Args section documents both parameters: doi with an example and limit with default/max constraints. This compensates for the lack of schema detail.

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 tool retrieves papers citing a given paper, using Semantic Scholar. It directly contrasts with sibling tools like search_papers (general search) and get_paper_details (single paper info).

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 implies usage when needing citation analysis but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. No when-not guidance is provided.

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