get_semantic_scholar_citations_and_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses that the tool is a legacy helper and returns only the first page, which is important for setting expectations. However, it does not mention the output structure, whether it combines citations and references or returns them separately, or any other side effects.

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 a single sentence that successfully conveys the main purpose and key limitations. It is efficiently written with no superfluous words.

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?

The description covers the essential fact that this is a legacy first-page-only helper, but given the existence of separate citations and references tools, it could clarify when to use this combined one. The output schema exists but the description doesn't explain whether both types of results are included in the same response structure. Still, for a simple legacy tool, the description is adequately short.

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?

The schema provides a single required parameter 'paper_id' with no description, and the description does not explain what format it should be in or how to obtain it. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to fill the parameter correctly.

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 the tool's function: returning the first page of citations and references for a paper. The term 'Legacy helper' distinguishes it from more modern or comprehensive sibling tools like get_semantic_scholar_paper_citations and get_semantic_scholar_paper_references. However, it could be clearer about whether it returns both in one structure or as separate items.

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 implies that this is a legacy tool, suggesting it may not be the preferred option, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide conditions for when to use it. It notes that only the first page is returned, which warns against using it for full data retrieval, but does not say 'use X instead'.

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