Get Top Cited Papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 40-item cap, the ordering (ranked by citation count, called wiki_count) and that entries are annotated via EuropePMC, but it omits what happens when the article is missing, whether results are cached, and what fields the annotated DOIs carry.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope ('up to 40 most-cited DOIs in an article') front-loaded before the annotation and ranking details. No filler, though the parenthetical '(wiki_count)' is a somewhat opaque internal term.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return shape, and it only partially does (DOIs annotated via EuropePMC, ranked by wiki_count). It is minimally sufficient but leaves the response structure and error behavior unspecified for a tool whose output is the whole point.

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 description coverage is 100%, so lang, date_limit and article_name are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about how lang or date_limit affect the ranking or which citations are considered, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the most-cited DOIs within a single article), quantifies the scope (up to 40) and states the ranking metric. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as get_doi_count or annotate_dois_europmc, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the article must exist / be a valid Wikipedia title), and no mention of alternatives. The reader must infer from the name alone that this is the 'top cited' variant rather than a plain count or a generic annotation tool.

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