get_semantic_scholar_paper_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about returned content (contexts, intents, influence) but omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'influence' means. It's not misleading, just incomplete for a tool without any annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and high-value response features. No wasted 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. An output schema exists but is not visible in the context, so relying on it for completeness is risky. The description provides the basic purpose but leaves parameter usage, alternatives, and behavioral nuances unaddressed.

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, but it doesn't explain any parameter. The mention of 'contexts, intents, and influence' hints at possible fields for the `fields` parameter, but `publication_date_or_year` and pagination parameters are left entirely ambiguous. Minimal added meaning beyond parameter names.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and clearly states the resource: papers citing a given paper. It also highlights key included elements (contexts, intents, influence), distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve references rather than 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 implies usage (when you want to see citing papers), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like get_semantic_scholar_citations_and_references or get_semantic_scholar_paper_references. No exclusions are mentioned.

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