get_citing_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: the result ordering (most cited first) and the provenance source (OpenAlex). It does not mention pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the resource and appending ordering and source as compact parenthetical detail. Nothing to trim.

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 exists, so return values needn't be described, but the tool has 0% schema coverage on two parameters and no usage guidance for distinguishing it from get_referenced_papers. The identifier format gap is the most consequential omission 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. The critical 'identifier' parameter type (DOI, OpenAlex ID, PMID, etc.) is never specified, and 'limit' is untouched — the mention of OpenAlex is the only weak hint about acceptable identifiers.

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?

States a specific resource and direction: papers that cite this one. The name plus description clearly contrast with the sibling get_referenced_papers, though the description itself doesn't explicitly name the inverse relationship. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named despite get_referenced_papers being the obvious sibling for the opposite direction. Only the ordering ("most cited first") and source (OpenAlex) are given, which is not usage guidance.

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