Get 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 disclose the returned content (citation sentence, intent categories, influential flag), which is useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about side-effect-free read behavior, rate limits, or pagination semantics beyond the offset name, leaving gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then briefly describes the returned fields and parameter list. No filler or repetition, though the bullet list of parameters is somewhat mechanical.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately describes the return payload, and all four parameters are covered despite 0% schema coverage. It is nearly complete for a read-only paginated retrieval tool, though it could mention error conditions or null behavior for invalid IDs.

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 documents all four parameters including paper_id, limit, offset, and the influential_only filter with its effect. It clarifies the boolean's meaning (only influential citations) and the pagination defaults, adding real value beyond the bare schema.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (papers that cited the given paper), and the direction of the citation relationship is unambiguous, distinguishing it from a references tool. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to tell it apart from 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 implied by the phrasing 'papers that cited the given paper,' which contrasts with the inverse reference direction, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or names an alternative to route to. An agent can infer the context but gets no explicit guidance or exclusions.

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