get_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it explains the OpenAlex source, local caching, presence of record_id for in-index works, and the match field's allowed values. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with little filler; it packs source, caching, record_id, and match semantics efficiently. The grammar issue in the first sentence hurts clarity slightly, but the description is appropriately sized.

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 output schema plus annotations cover return values and safety, and the description explains the most important output nuance. However, it omits refresh/limit behavior and does not explicitly distinguish this reference-list tool from the get_citations sibling, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 for the three parameters, but it does not explain id, limit, or refresh. The cache mention loosely relates to refresh and 'a record' implies id, but the semantics of refresh and limit are left undocumented.

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 identifies the resource as a record's reference list and adds useful source context (OpenAlex, cached locally). It is clear enough, though the opening phrase 'Works a record cites' is ungrammatical and lacks an explicit verb; the tool name helps compensate.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the works cited by a record. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_citations, nor does it state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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