get_paper_citations

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

With no annotations, description fully explains behavior: traverses citation graph, returns specific metadata, provider-specific errors, and excludes synthesis. Missing rate limits or auth but sufficient for a read-like tool.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and provider note, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, could be tightened.

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?

Given output schema exists, description covers return types, provider differences, and limitations. Adequate for agent to use correctly, though handling arXiv error could be clearer.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, description clarifies paper_id and provider semantics. However, limit/offset parameters are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 retrieves papers citing a specified paper, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_paper_references (references out) and get_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?

Provides clear context on provider differences (Semantic Scholar vs. arXiv) and what the tool does not do (no synthesis). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond implied differentiation.

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