related-papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the provider backends supported and the hard constraint that offset must be a multiple of limit, which is the kind of operational rule annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The provider list and offset rule are compactly stated rather than expounded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description covers direction, provider, and the offset constraint, but with 0% schema coverage the unaddressed identifier parameter and lack of pagination/termination guidance leave an agent under-informed for a 5-parameter tool.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies direction values (citations vs references), enumerates provider options, and documents the offset/limit relationship, but leaves identifier entirely unspecified (format, which ID schemes are accepted).

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 (page through) and resource (citing papers or references in one provider's graph), which cleanly separates it from get-citation or search-papers. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 establishes the context (paging citations/references within a single provider) and the provider set, but gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance relative to siblings like get-citation or batch-citations. Usage is implied by the paging framing rather than stated.

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