Get References

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 does disclose the shape of the payload (citation context, intent categories, influential flag), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, failure modes, or what a sparse result means.

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 clause, followed by return-value detail and then a compact parameter list. The parameter list partially restates the schema, but since the schema has zero descriptions that repetition is earning its place rather than padding.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by explaining what comes back and how to control it. Remaining gaps are minor: no total-count or pagination-termination guidance, and no indication of what an empty reference list implies.

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 their defaults and the meaning of influential_only. It does not explain the expected format or provenance of paper_id, which is the one required parameter.

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 and resource with an explicit direction: 'papers that this paper references,' which distinguishes it from the reverse-direction sibling get_citations. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from get_citations, get_related_papers, or find_common_citations, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The closest sibling, get_citations (papers citing this one), is the exact inverse operation and is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess between them from the name alone.

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