Get paper references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: parsed fields are unverified candidates, fields.year is only populated when quality.year=verified_by_pattern, and text attributed to another article appears under 'excluded' with its page. It still says nothing about pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded on the return shape with no filler, which is good. But the prose is heavily compressed and jargon-laden ('quality.year=verified_by_pattern', 'continuation-marker evidence') without explaining those terms, forcing the agent to decode terse internal vocabulary.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a reasonable job characterizing the returned entry and candidate/excluded structure. But for a paginated list tool it omits pagination mechanics entirely and gives no hint about reference-list size or ordering, leaving a real gap 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?

Schema coverage is only 33% — offset and paper_id have no schema descriptions — yet the description spends all of its words on output fields and never mentions limit, offset, or how to page through a long reference list. The one documented parameter (limit, default 50) is documented in the schema, not the description.

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 states a specific resource and return shape: reference-list entries as printed (raw_text) with PDF page numbers, plus rule-parsed candidate fields. An agent can tell this returns bibliography entries rather than page images or structure, but it never names a sibling (e.g. get_paper_structure) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named. The closing note ('A citation says nothing about inheritance or experimental comparison') is an interpretation caveat, not routing guidance, so the agent must infer usage 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.