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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what types of relationships are discovered (citation relationships, shared topics, research connections), enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two crisp sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second elaborates on the discovery mechanisms and provides usage timing. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant wording or boilerplate.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations. The description covers purpose, usage context, and relationship discovery, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately. However, it does not describe the return value structure (e.g., a list of related items with metadata), and since there is no output schema, some detail on expected output would improve completeness. Overall, it is adequately complete for a read-only exploration tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, meaning every parameter has a description, so the agent can understand parameters from the schema alone. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it neither explains default behavior nor parameter relationships further. Thus, a baseline score of 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 the tool finds articles related to a specific item, specifying the resource (RRM Academy research library) and the nature of relationships (citations, topics, research connections). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article (retrieving a single article) and search (query-based) by focusing on exploring broader context around an already retrieved item.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use after retrieving an article to explore the broader research context.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool relative to other actions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is strong enough to guide an AI agent correctly.

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