Research Paper Citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination, result volume, coverage of the citation graph, or auth requirements — leaving the behavioral burden entirely on structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a three-parameter read tool. It is efficient rather than padded, though it borders on under-specified.

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 values need no explanation, and the parameter schema is complete. However, for a graph-traversal tool an agent would benefit from knowing the relationship semantics and any limits; the description stops at the minimum viable level.

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 paper_id, direction, and limit are already fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The phrase 'citations or references' echoes the direction enum but adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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 ('Get') and resource ('citations or references for a paper') that clearly maps to the tool name. It is distinguishable from research_paper_search and research_paper_details by the citation/reference focus, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as research_paper_details for metadata or research_paper_recommendations for related work. The agent must infer the niche from the tool name alone.

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