Inspect a paper and its citation neighborhood

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior: "one upstream lookup per requested section," "unresolvable identifier returns a not-found message rather than an error," and lists "ordered by influence and cut at limit." This gives the agent concrete expectations beyond safety hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, usage routing in the second, and behavioral notes in short, scannable sentences. Every sentence adds information; there is 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?

Given the output schema, full parameter schema descriptions, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation context: when to use it, alternatives, error behavior, list ordering, and truncation. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that citation and reference lists are "ordered by influence and cut at limit," clarifying how the limit parameter behaves and how include sections are returned. It does not need to restate schema details.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: "Get metadata for one known paper, optionally with the papers that cite it and the papers it references." This clearly distinguishes it from search-oriented tools by emphasizing a known identifier, and the title reinforces the citation-neighborhood scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: "Use this when you already have an identifier," and names alternatives: "use search_papers to find one first, and recommend_papers for related work that is not a direct citation." This provides clear routing among siblings.

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