Find citing papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest first, each carries a one-line abstract, and a separator line summarizes the page and total count. It doesn't cover error behavior or rate limits, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and behavior, then pagination details, then inputs. Four sentences plus an example are reasonably tight, though the inputs list redundantly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (one-line abstract per result, showing line with page/total info) and how to paginate. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters fully. The description's inputs section largely restates the schema (paper formats, page range, limit range) without adding new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (lists) and resource (papers that cite a given paper), plus ordering (newest first). Explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling paper_references as 'the other half of the citation graph,' so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explains when to use it (walking the citation graph in both directions for a literature review) and names the complementary sibling tool explicitly. The example prompt ('who cited DOI ...?') reinforces the use case.

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