get_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral context. It discloses the core behavior (incoming citations) and pagination via limit/offset, but it does not mention result ordering, error behavior, or any rate-limit/authentication considerations. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact Args list deliver purpose and parameters with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded before parameter details.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with an output schema and three straightforward parameters, the description is nearly complete. The main remaining gap is the absence of explicit alternative routing (e.g., get_references for outgoing citations), but the semantics and parameter details are sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: paper_id explains accepted ID formats ('DOI, ArXiv ID, etc.'), limit adds a range and default ('1-1000, default 10'), and offset explains its role. This is meaningful beyond the raw types/titles in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get papers that cite a given paper.' This clearly identifies the tool's operation and distinguishes it from siblings such as get_references (papers cited by) and get_paper (a single paper).

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 conveys its intended use—retrieve citing papers for a paper ID—but it does not explicitly contrast this with get_references or other sibling tools, nor state when not to use it. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than spelled out.

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