get_citations

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

Annotations already provide safety traits (readOnly, idempotent). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns citing papers. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's contribution is adequate but not enriched.

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?

Single sentence with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('papers that cite a given paper'), no wasted words, information clearly front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool and thorough schema annotations, the description is sufficient. It lacks explicit output format details, but that is covered by the response_format parameter.

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 descriptions cover all parameters comprehensively (bibcode as identifier, rows with range/default, response_format as enum). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves citing papers (forward citations) for a given paper using a bibcode identifier. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_references' (backward citations) by specifying 'forward citations'.

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 gives clear context for when to use (when you need forward citations) and implies the alternative (get_references for backward citations) through the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide additional usage constraints.

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