research_paper_citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potentially partial results. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond what the schema and annotations provide, such as pagination behavior or error handling. This is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 with no wasted words. While it is efficient, it is also very brief and could benefit from mentioning default behavior or output format. Still, it avoids verbosity and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it does not mention that the 'direction' parameter defaults to 'citations' or that 'limit' is capped at 1000. The schema covers these, but the description could contextualize them for easier understanding. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema already explains all parameters (paper_id, direction, limit). The tool description does not add meaning beyond stating the overall purpose, which is baseline for high coverage. No contradiction or enhancement is present.

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving citations or references for a paper. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'citations or references' makes the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like research_paper_details or research_paper_search by focusing on the citation/reference list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as research_paper_details (which might show citation count) or research_paper_search. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent with insufficient context for selection among siblings.

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