get_citation_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns that the tool is 'Temporarily unavailable — legacy endpoints decommissioned, ODP migration pending,' which is crucial for an agent to know. It also describes the type of data returned. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but for a simple query tool this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage guideline and an important availability notice. The 'Args' section is redundant because it simply restates the schema, but it is brief and does not significantly bloat the description.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the critical unavailability warning. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. It could be more comprehensive about what 'citation age metrics' means, but the description is complete enough for an agent to select and attempt to invoke the tool correctly (or avoid it due to unavailability).

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter `patent_number`. The description only repeats the parameter name and type ('patent_number: Patent number'), adding no additional meaning, format expectations, or examples. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get citation metrics for a patent.' It further details the scope (forward/backward counts and citation age metrics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on citation lookup or enrichment rather than quantitative metrics.

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?

Explicitly provides a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section explaining the intended use case: 'quantitative citation analysis including forward/backward counts and citation age metrics.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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