get_citing_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It implies a read-only retrieval but says nothing about entitlement/rate-limit implications, pagination, result size limits, or ordering behavior (all of which only surface in the schema's parameter text).

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the key concept (forward citations) is immediately clear. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the return shape (what fields a citing paper carries, how many, pagination) but only says 'a list of papers'. Given the source-dependent result IDs (Scopus vs OpenAlex) noted in the schema, this leaves an agent guessing about the response.

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%, and the schema itself thoroughly documents sort, count, source and scopus_id (including cross-source ID behavior and entitlements), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the parenthetical about which citations are returned.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (papers that have cited the specified document), and the parenthetical '(Forward Citations)' disambiguates it from a backward-citation tool like get_references. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with the many citation-oriented siblings (citation_network, citation_lineage, resolve_citers).

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: it never says when to prefer this over get_references, citation_network, citation_lineage, or resolve_citers, nor any precondition beyond what the schema states. The scope is implied by the verb, but no alternatives or exclusions are offered.

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