Google Scholar Cited By

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'scrape' but discloses nothing about rate limits, anti-bot behavior, pagination semantics, or auth requirements; the engine note merely delegates to another tool rather than describing 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?

Two short sentences with no padding and the core purpose front-loaded. However, the second sentence is a mixed-language fragment ('engine: auto | http | proxy | browser (lihat google_web_search)') that adds a reference without explaining it, weakening structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and zero annotations the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call the tool correctly across hl/num/start/engine.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at cluster_id's origin and lists engine values via a cross-reference; hl, num, and start remain completely undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb ('scrape') and resource ('papers citing a Scholar cluster') and clarifies the source of the required cluster_id, which separates it from sibling google_scholar_search. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with the other Scholar tool beyond the parenthetical.

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 note that cluster_id comes 'from cluster_id in scholar results' implies the workflow (first run a Scholar search, then use this), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for obtaining citation data.

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