get_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions ordering (most-cited first) and quota behavior, but does not address error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the identifier is invalid. This is partial transparency.

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 very concise, with two clear sentences. It avoids unnecessary detail and focuses on essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

It communicates the core function and key characteristics (free, fallback, ordering). Since there is no output schema, the lack of return format details is acceptable. However, it could have briefly differentiated itself from forward citations (get_citing_papers) for full context, though 'backward citations' already implies this.

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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters (identifier types, count default and max). The description adds no new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so it provides no extra value.

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 the tool returns backward citations (the reference list) for a paper, with a fallback mechanism. This unambiguously defines the tool's primary purpose.

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?

It notes that the tool is free and does not consume Scopus quota, which implies when to prefer it (to avoid quota usage). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_citing_papers or search_scopus for comparison, leaving some inference to the agent.

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