get_citations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses use of Semantic Scholar and return format (JSON with count and papers). But lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

Description is clear and well-structured with a brief summary followed by parameter list. No unnecessary text. Could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter descriptions, but still efficient.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, description covers parameters and return type adequately. But missing behavioral context (rate limits, error handling) and fails to discuss usage alongside sibling tools. Not fully complete for a complex 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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. Lists all parameters (doi, limit, min_citations, check_library) with clear explanation of each, including defaults and max for limit. Adds value beyond raw schema.

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 states 'Find papers that cite a given paper using Semantic Scholar.' The verb 'find' and resource 'citing papers' are specific. Differentiates from siblings like get_references (citations vs references) and search_semantic_scholar (general search).

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need citations of a paper. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned. Lacks guidance on when to use this versus find_related, get_references, or search_semantic_scholar.

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