get_citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the citation direction and an unspecified 'window of up to 200', but says nothing about result ordering, whether the window is a candidate pool vs. a result cap, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical clarification is well placed. The trailing 'from a window of up to 200' clause is the only part that would benefit from rewording.

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?

An output schema and annotations carry much of the load, so a one-line description is defensible for a read-only retrieval tool. However, the unexplained 200-vs-50 discrepancy and the absence of any note on sort_by or ordering leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents limit, paper_id, and influential_only, so the description adds little. Worse, 'a window of up to 200' conflicts with the schema's limit maximum of 50, leaving an agent unsure whether 200 is a result cap or an underlying candidate pool, and sort_by's semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific resource (papers citing a paper) and explicitly disambiguates direction with '(forward citations)', which contrasts with the backward-looking sibling get_references. It stops short of naming that sibling or any other alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Forward citations' implicitly tells an agent this is the complement of reference lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of find_related_papers or build_citation_graph as alternatives. The agent must infer routing from the phrase alone.

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