lit_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses accepted input formats and the behavior that references are resolved to real records, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only safety, pagination, errors, or whether the limit truncates results.

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 three sentences and mostly front-loaded with the core definition. The second sentence adds motivational context rather than pure reference material, but it earns its place by clarifying why the tool matters. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple lookup tool, especially with an output schema present. However, given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it could further clarify limit semantics, read-only behavior, and how this relates to lit_cited_by or lit_get.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does specify the identifier formats (DOI:10.x, PMID:123, arXiv:1234.5678), which clarifies the main parameter. The 'limit' parameter is not explained, though its default of 40 is visible 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 clearly identifies the resource as a paper's bibliography/reference list and adds that the results are 'resolved to real records,' which meaningfully distinguishes it from simple citation extraction. It does not use an explicit imperative verb, but 'Reading a paper's reference list...' makes the action unambiguous.

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 a use case: finding work outside your subfield by reading a paper's references. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over lit_cited_by, lit_get, or lit_search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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