get_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the use of Semantic Scholar, the return format (JSON with count and papers list), and the check_library behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or confirm that it is a read-only operation.

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 concise, with a clear separation of Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for Args).

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 presence of an output schema (though not detailed in description), the tool is adequately described. Input parameters are explained, the data source is identified, and the return structure is summarized. Sibling context is known from the list.

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%, but the description provides brief yet meaningful explanations for all four parameters (doi, limit, min_citations, check_library) beyond their types and defaults. This adds sufficient context for agent understanding.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'papers that cite a given paper' using Semantic Scholar. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_semantic_scholar' (general search) and 'get_references' (likely referenced 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 description implies usage for citation lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_related', 'search_semantic_scholar'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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