Get Papers That Cite This Paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: a limit of 100 papers, the specific output fields (title, authors, year, etc.), and potential error response. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not address rate limits or authentication.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then details output structure. It is efficient with no extraneous information, though the Args/Returns section partly duplicates the initial description. Still, it is well-structured and concise, earning a 4.

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 simplicity (one parameter, list output) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format thoroughly, with no gaps. Annotations further cover safety and idempotency, making this fully informative.

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 100%, so the description's parameter section merely repeats the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (paper_title with min/max length). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra semantics.

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 'Return up to 100 papers that cite the given paper (forward citations).' This uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('papers that cite'), and explicitly mentions 'forward citations' to distinguish it from the sibling tool paper_get_references.

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 implies usage for obtaining forward citations, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like paper_get_references. However, the mention of 'forward citations' and the sibling context (paper_get_references for backward) provides clear contextual guidance. A slight lack of explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use prevents a perfect score.

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