get_paper_references

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It explicitly states the tool retrieves structured metadata only, does not evaluate quality, and notes provider-specific error behavior. This is comprehensive for a read-only 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the list of returned fields could be condensed. Overall, it is appropriately sized without excess.

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 the tool has an output schema and moderate complexity, the description provides sufficient context: it lists output fields, provider differences, and limitations. It lacks pagination details but is otherwise complete.

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. It explains the tool’s purpose and the provider parameter, but does not describe limit, offset, or paper_id format. This leaves some ambiguity despite the overall context.

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 referenced by a given paper, distinguishing it from siblings like get_paper_citations by specifying 'reference graph' and 'bibliography.' It also details the output structure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by noting that Semantic Scholar supports reference graph retrieval while arXiv does not, indicating when to avoid this tool. However, it could more explicitly contrast with siblings like get_paper_citations.

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