get_enriched_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool is temporarily unavailable due to API decommissioning, which is critical safety information. It also mentions defaults for include_forward/backward. However, it doesn't describe the structure of the returned data or any error conditions, so it is not a 5.

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 well-structured with clear sections, uses a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' header, and every sentence serves a purpose. It is concise yet informative, without fluff. The important unavailability warning is front-loaded, making it highly effective.

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?

Despite being currently unavailable, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage guidance. An output schema exists, so return values don't need to be detailed, but the description could mention more about the enriched metrics or response format. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand what it would do if operational.

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, but the description provides definitions for all three parameters (patent_number, include_forward, include_backward) and their defaults, adding value beyond the schema. It doesn't explain the patent number format or details about the metrics, but the core semantics are covered.

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 that the tool retrieves enriched citation data for a patent, including forward and backward citations. This is specific and distinguishes it from other patent retrieval tools like patentsview_get_patent, although it could be more explicit about what 'enriched' means beyond basic citations.

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?

The description provides an explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section, and importantly, it warns that the tool is currently unavailable and recommends an alternative (patentsview_get_patent) for basic citation data. This is excellent usage guidance for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool.

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