Google Scholar Cited By

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the engine modes and the fact that Google rate-limits these calls and may return blocked results. It does not describe pagination behavior or result volume, but the added characteristics are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then engine options and the rate-limit caveat, with no filler. The mixed-language cross-reference '(lihat google_web_search)' is slightly opaque to an English reader but costs little space.

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 values need not be described, and the rate-limit warning is a genuine completion of the picture. What is missing is any explanation of the pagination parameters an agent must set to page through citing papers, which is a meaningful gap for a scraper tool.

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 carry the burden, and it only partially does: it explains cluster_id's source and lists engine options. The pagination parameters (num, start) and hl are never explained in either place, leaving three of five parameters undocumented.

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 input's origin ('cluster_id from scholar results'), which cleanly separates it from google_scholar_search. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the tool to call first, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in prose.

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?

Gives implied context via the parenthetical pointing to cluster_id from scholar results, and the rate-limit note ('avoid rapid repeats; when the result is blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool') is useful operating guidance. However, it never states explicitly that you must run google_scholar_search first, nor names a concrete sibling alternative for fallback.

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