get_citations

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: local caching with a 90-day refresh cycle, a distinction between index-only citing works and OpenAlex totals, and the meaning of cited_by_count_openalex. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 three tightly written sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and parameter notes kept compact. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema. The structure is ideal for a read-only cached query.

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?

Given the rich annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential contextual elements: data source, caching behavior, the only_in_index filter, and a key output field. The refresh parameter's explicit behavior is not stated, but the 90-day refresh note makes it reasonably inferable. Overall, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden of parameter semantics. It does this well for only_in_index, explaining both the filter behavior and its conceptual significance. However, it does not explain id, the explicit effect of refresh=True, or limit, leaving a partial gap in parameter understanding.

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 states the tool returns works that cite a record, sourced via OpenAlex and cached locally. It makes the inbound-citation direction clear, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_references, though it does not explicitly name that sibling. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 only_in_index option provides a clear conditional scoping rule with an interpretive gloss ('what has built on this report'), and the 90-day refresh note sets expectations about data freshness. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_references or export_citations, and no exclusions are stated. Usage context is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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