Get Article References

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and idempotent, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by stating that the response includes the total reference count and per-reference bibliographic details, and that pagination is available via page_size and page. It does not mention edge cases like empty reference lists, but the output schema and annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Four sentences with the purpose first, followed by return shape, pagination, and use cases. No filler; every sentence earns its place and the most important information is 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?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description is largely complete: input, output, pagination, and use cases are covered. It does not explicitly connect 'other source-specific ID' to the src parameter or contrast with the forward-citation sibling, but the output schema and 100% schema coverage compensate for those gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the id guidance (PMID vs other source-specific IDs) and mentions page/page_size for pagination, but adds little beyond what the schema's own parameter descriptions already provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: retrieve the bibliography/reference list of a biomedical article from Europe PMC. The phrase 'backward citation tracking' hints at how it differs from the sibling europepmc.literature.citations, but it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 use cases (backward citation tracking, understanding research foundations, identifying cited authors, building citation networks), which tells an agent when this tool is relevant. It does not state exclusions or direct the agent to europepmc.literature.citations for forward citations, so the guidance is contextual rather than contrastive.

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