get_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a cap ('window of up to 200'), but that number conflicts with the schema's limit maximum of 50 and is not explained, leaving the truncated-result behavior unclear.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing 'from a window of up to 200' is the one weak spot because it is ambiguous and raises a question it does not answer.

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 carries the return shape and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to fix the direction of the lookup, which it does. The unexplained 200-versus-50 discrepancy is the remaining gap.

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 67%: paper_id and limit are documented in the schema, while sort_by has only an enum. The description adds nothing about accepted id formats, limit behavior, or what the 'window of up to 200' means relative to the limit parameter, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a specific resource and direction: 'papers the given paper cites (its bibliography)'. That wording implicitly separates it from get_citations, which covers the opposite direction, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is inferable from the phrase 'cites (its bibliography)', so an agent can tell this is a backward-reference lookup. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as get_citations or find_related_papers.

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