citation_network

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

Adds context annotations cannot convey: the snapshot is frozen and sampled, so results are incomplete and may be stale, and there is no live expansion. Pagination is signalled via 'Follow next_offset'. It stops short of stating what happens on an unknown identifier or an exhausted offset.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then modes, then pagination, then coverage caveats. No filler; every clause adds usable information.

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 no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the essentials: what is read, which modes exist, how to page, and the sampling limitation. It could go further on return shape beyond next_offset and on error behavior for invalid identifiers.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it largely does: identifier accepts a library paper_id or an OpenAlex W ID, and mode accepts references/citing/relations. Offset is only obliquely covered by 'Follow next_offset', with no stated default or range.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: reading a frozen citation snapshot, and names the three access modes (references, citing, relations). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search or fetch, though it never explicitly contrasts with them by name.

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?

Usage is implied by the mode list and the notes on sampling and no live expansion, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool rather than search, fetch, or source_page. The agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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