get_top_cited_works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states 'Automatically filters for papers with significant citations', which is a key behavior. However, it omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no results are found. Overall clear for a read-only query tool.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds unique value. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors well, but lacks information about the output format (no schema provided). Given 12 parameters and no output schema, a brief note on return fields (e.g., citation count, title) would enhance completeness, but it is still largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining automatic filtering, providing examples (e.g., exact phrase usage), and suggesting parameter combinations (e.g., source_issn). This guidance exceeds what the schema alone offers.

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 finds 'most highly cited works' and identifies 'influential and seminal papers'. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_works or find_seminal_papers by its focus on citation count and automatic filtering.

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 provides clear context on usage, e.g., 'Combine with source_name or source_issn to find the most-cited papers in a specific top journal/conference'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_seminal_papers) or exclusions.

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