spraay_research_scholarly_citations_count

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds cost and states 'Read-only', but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or result structure. Output schema covers return format, so this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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?

Description is brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The sentence 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments' is slightly redundant with schema, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description is largely complete: purpose, cost, read-only. Could explicitly contrast with similar tools for completeness.

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?

Single parameter 'doi' with schema description 'doi parameter' is minimal. The description does not add extra meaning (e.g., format, example). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; no additional value provided.

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 it provides 'Citation count and references for a DOI', with a specific verb (get) and resource (citation count/references) and input (DOI). This distinguishes it from siblings like spraay_research_scholarly_by_doi (full metadata) and spraay_research_papers_citations.

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?

Cost and read-only nature are stated, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., spraay_research_scholarly_by_doi). The description does not exclude cases where more detail is needed.

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