get_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a citation list with metadata, total count, and a year-by-year timeline. It also specifies constraints like inspire_id as numeric, direction default, and size range. Behavior is well described.

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 extremely concise, using only 8 lines. It starts with a clear purpose, then bullet-lists arguments with explanations. Every sentence adds unique value, no fluff.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 1 required, and an output schema exists, the description covers input parameters thoroughly and mentions return structure (citation list, total count, timeline). No gaps remain for an agent to understand usage.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds full meaning: explains inspire_id as InspireHEP record ID (numeric), direction with values and meanings ('citing' or 'cited_by'), and size range (1–250, default 50). This far exceeds what the schema names and defaults provide.

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 states 'Retrieve citation graph data for a paper.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_references by specifying 'citation graph data' and direction options (citing/cited_by), but could be more explicit about how it differs from get_references which might also return citations.

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 provides usage context by listing required and optional parameters and their defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_references or when not to use it.

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