get_citation_counts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states that iCite returns counts only and includes external citations, while pubmed uses elink and can return citing PMIDs. It also implies that include_citing_pmids is only effective with pubmed. It does not cover error handling or output format, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second explains the key parameter choice and its benefit. Every clause adds value and the 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?

The tool is relatively simple, has no output schema, and lacks annotations. The description covers the main use cases, the source distinction, and what to expect from each mode. It omits details like return structure or failure behavior, but these are less critical for a simple lookup tool and the description is otherwise adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what 'icite' and 'pubmed' mean conceptually (external vs. internal citations, snowballing) and how they affect both the output and the include_citing_pmids parameter. This enriches the raw schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get citation counts for PMIDs.' It clearly distinguishes between the two sources (iCite vs. PubMed), which differentiates this tool from sibling tools like 'count' or 'fetch'. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 explicit guidance on which source to use: default iCite for broad counts, and citing_source='pubmed' when PubMed-internal citations or citing PMIDs are needed. It explains the trade-off and a concrete use case (backward snowballing), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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