Find Common Citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does explain the set-intersection behavior and the direction semantics. However, it omits return format, result limits, and error behavior for cases where fewer than two valid IDs are supplied.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact per-parameter notes. The middle sentence is slightly verbose but earns its place by clarifying the intersection use case.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description could say more about what a returned paper record looks like and how many results to expect. It conveys the core concept adequately but leaves return-structure gaps.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains paper_ids as a list of 2+ IDs to intersect with an example, and enumerates the direction values ('citations' vs 'references') even though the schema declares no enum.

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 ('Find') and resource ('common citations') with clear scope ('in the citation graph of ALL given papers'), and its intersection semantics distinguish it from the single-paper siblings get_citations/get_references.

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?

Usage is only implied through the conceptual framing ('intersection of two or more research threads', 'bridges multiple topics'), but no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives are provided.

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