get_references

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral constraint: Scopus requires an entitled subscriber key while source='openalex' does not. It also confirms read-style retrieval semantics implicitly and points to the reply's completeness reporting, though it stops short of describing truncation or error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; purpose and the sibling contrast are front-loaded before the less critical entitlement note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 5-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, directional alternative and auth prerequisites, and the schema fully documents each parameter. The absence of any statement about what the returned reference records contain is the only real gap.

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 count, source, scopus_id, filter_ids and check_completeness are already documented with defaults, enums and behavior. The description adds only the entitlement point already implied by the source enum's schema text, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the cited-reference list of a document'), gives the domain synonym (Backward Citations), and names the mechanism (Abstract Retrieval REF view). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_citing_papers by direction of citation, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the choice against get_citing_papers ('Complements ... which returns forward citations'), which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs for citation tools. It also flags the entitlement prerequisite for source='scopus'. No explicit when-not conditions beyond that, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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