get_referenced_papers

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral facts beyond them: the data source (OpenAlex) and a hard ceiling of 100 results, which tells the agent the result set is bounded.

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?

One sentence fragment with zero filler, and the citation direction is front-loaded before the source/limit qualifiers. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 need not be explained, and the 100-result cap plus source give useful framing. However, for a tool whose only required input is an identifier, the silent schema and the absence of any identifier-format guidance leave a real 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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description contributes only 'up to 100', which loosely bounds limit, while the required identifier parameter is never defined (DOI? OpenAlex ID? PMID?). With a required identifier and no schema text, the description fails to compensate.

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 direction of traversal ('papers this one cites') against a specific resource ('its reference list'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_citing_papers. An agent can pick correctly 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?

Usage is implied by the citation direction, but the description never states when to use this versus get_citing_papers, find_similar_papers, or get_paper_details, nor any prerequisite about the input paper. Adequate but the routing must be inferred.

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