citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only identifiers are accepted and that citation intent is not classified, which is useful, but it omits details on error handling, output format, authentication, or rate limits. For a read-style tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately clarify scope. No unnecessary words, and the key differentiator (no citation intent) is included early.

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 tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It does not specify identifier format (e.g., DOI, PMID), behavior of limit, or any preconditions. An agent would need to infer or discover these details elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the direction parameter with its two values, but does not clarify what kind of identifier is expected (e.g., DOI) or the semantics of the limit parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for two of the three parameters.

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 lists citations or references of a paper via OpenCitations, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by implying a focused citation lookup, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with search/fetch.

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 implies when to use (when you need citation/reference relationships) and gives context like identifiers only and no intent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like search or fetch.

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