get_citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral detail that this is forward citations, which is not captured by annotations or the tool name alone. It does not, however, discuss edge cases like pagination behavior beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, and there is zero redundancy or tangential 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?

Given the presence of a complete input schema with all parameter descriptions, an output schema (not shown but indicated), and annotations that cover safety, the one-sentence description is sufficient. It clearly identifies the tool's scope (forward citations) and relies on structured fields for the rest, which is complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, including the client-side filtering effect of min_citations and pagination semantics. The description itself adds no parameter information, so it does not go beyond the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('papers that cite the given paper'), and explicitly clarifies 'forward citations', which distinguishes it from backward citation tools like get_references. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 phrase 'forward citations' provides clear context that this tool is for finding papers that cite the given paper, implicitly differentiating it from get_references (backward citations). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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