get_citing_papers

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 mentions retrieval but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what happens with invalid Scopus IDs. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and scope concisely, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., paper details format), error handling, usage limits, or dependencies. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to ensure reliable use by an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (scopus_id, count, sort) with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses Scopus IDs, which is already stated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of papers that have cited the specified document'), with specific scope indicated by 'Forward Citations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_abstract_details' or 'search_scopus' by focusing on citation retrieval rather than document details or general search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential citation-related tools not present in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions 'Forward Citations', it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Scopus ID), contrast with other citation methods, or indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools like 'search_scopus' for citation-related queries.

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