find_referenced_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the use of Semantic Scholar, but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. For a tool that makes external API calls, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence that captures the core functionality without extraneous words. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve structure (e.g., separate usage notes) while remaining concise.

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's complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, pagination, potential delays from external API calls, or error scenarios (e.g., invalid arXiv ID).

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 covers both parameters (arxiv_id, limit) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as hinting at the id format or the effect of the limit. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 action ('Find papers referenced') and the resource ('a given arXiv paper'), specifying it uses Semantic Scholar. It distinguishes from 'find_citing_papers' which searches for papers that cite the given paper, but does not differentiate from the sibling 'extract_paper_references', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'extract_paper_references' or 'find_citing_papers'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context in which this tool is preferable.

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