get_citations_by_citations

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

The description fully discloses key behaviors: default sorting (velocity), the SS endpoint's descending publicationDate order, the effect of exclude_recent_year filtering, and the min_velocity threshold. This is excellent transparency given no 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 well-structured with a concise overview followed by a bulleted parameter list. The first paragraph is slightly technical but necessary. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, sorting logic, filtering), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, behavioral quirks, and output context. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all 7 parameters including defaults, acceptable values (e.g., paper_id formats), and functional effect (e.g., exclude_recent_year removes recent year). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool's action: sorting and returning subsequent studies that cited a paper. It specifies the resource (citations of a paper) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_references_by_citations or get_citation_contexts.

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 explains the issue with the SS API's default sorting and why exclude_recent_year is used, implying when to set that parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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