Get citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation and adds that results include provenance, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, potential absent data, or how provenance is represented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the verb, the resource, the source, and the provenance qualifier.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description plus schema covers the essentials: what is returned (citing works with provenance), the required identifier, and the optional limit with bounds. The output shape is not detailed, but none is expected for this lightweight call.

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% and the description does not explain paper_id or limit. Although the parameter names are intuitive, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, especially the meaning of paper_id as the paper whose citing works are returned.

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 a specific operation ('Retrieve') and resource ('Semantic Scholar citing works'), and the phrase 'citing works' distinguishes it from the sibling get_references (cited works). The addition 'with provenance' further clarifies the scope of returned data.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as get_references or get_related_papers. The agent must infer that this is for inbound citations rather than outbound references or related works.

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