oa_cited_by

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those: results are ordered most-cited first, the response uses the unified envelope, and no searched_for headline is set. These additions give the agent practical expectations without contradicting 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?

Three short sentences, each contributing distinct information: the result set and ordering, the return envelope, and the identifier-filter caveat. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description covers the essential remaining details: ordering, envelope, and headline behavior. The only minor gap is not explicitly pointing to a search tool to use when no identifier is available, but that is a small omission given the sibling set and clear identifier framing.

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?

The description clarifies that the key input is an identifier rather than a search term, which complements the schema's 'OpenAlex work ID or DOI' note. However, it does little to explain page or per_page behavior beyond what the schema defaults already convey. The added semantic value is modest but real.

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 operation: return works that cite a given work, ordered most-cited first. It explicitly distinguishes itself from term search by framing the tool as a filter on an identifier, which separates it from the search siblings. The purpose is specific, actionable, and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you already have a work identifier and need the works citing it. It also warns that this is not a term search and that no searched_for headline is set, which helps prevent misuse. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the identifier-vs-term contrast is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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