get_citations

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

With no annotations, the description only mentions that a cluster ID is required and implies a read operation. It does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic prerequisite. The absence of annotations means the description carries the burden, but it provides minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key prerequisite. No unnecessary words, and the essential 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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and a key prerequisite, it does not describe the output or return format. Without an output schema, the agent may need more context about what the response contains (e.g., list of paper titles, authors). Given the low complexity and high schema coverage of parameters, the description is moderately complete but lacks output details.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds only that the cluster ID comes from the publication's 'Cited by' link, which is a minor semantic addition beyond the schema. Therefore, a score of 3 (baseline for high schema coverage) is appropriate.

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 functionality: getting papers that cite a specific publication. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('papers that cite a specific publication'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'search_publications' which searches broadly.

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 includes a clear prerequisite (requires cluster ID from 'Cited by' link), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_publications' or 'get_related_articles'. The mention of the required input provides some guidance, but not full usage context.

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