get_work_citations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination limits (though max is in schema), rate limits, response format, or any side effects. It only states the purpose without additional context.

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 concise (one sentence) and clearly states the tool's purpose. It could benefit from a second sentence about pagination or sorting, but it is efficient and 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return format or key fields. It does not. The 4 parameters are well-documented in the schema, but missing outcome details make it moderately complete.

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%, with all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'id' as OpenAlex ID, DOI, or URL is already in schema). 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('works that cite a given work'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_references' (which retrieves references) and provides context for forward citation analysis.

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 states it is 'essential for forward citation analysis and understanding research impact,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like 'get_citation_network' or 'search_works,' nor does it mention when not to use.

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