Get Paper Citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the basic operation without revealing any behavioral traits such as pagination, default limit, sorting, response format, or potential limitations. This falls short of what is needed for a tool with no annotation support.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, achieving maximum clarity in minimal words.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description lacks any mention of return value structure, default behavior, or distinctions from sibling tools. It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for an agent that needs to anticipate outputs or edge cases.

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 100%, with both paper_id (S2 ID or DOI) and limit (max results, default 50) clearly described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves papers that cite a given paper, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('papers that cite'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_references (which gets papers cited by a paper), get_paper (single paper), and get_related (related papers).

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 intended usage is implied by the name and title — use when you need citing papers for a specific paper. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_references, nor any mention of prerequisites or restrictions.

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