related_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read via 'Fetch' but never states read-only safety, permission requirements, error behavior for invalid relation names, or pagination semantics despite limit/offset existing.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, purpose front-loaded ahead of the discovery hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Params are fully schema-documented and there is no output schema, but with no annotations the description still leaves the return shape and pagination behavior unexplained for a relation-fetch tool. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 schema already documents id, relation, limit, and offset, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the describe_article discovery hint for the relation parameter and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (related objects for an Article instance), which is clearer than a tautology and scopes it to Article. It is distinguishable from get_article/list_article/history_article, though it relies on the name pattern rather than prose to differentiate from siblings like related_author.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: use describe_article first to discover valid relation names, which is real actionable guidance for calling this tool. It lacks any when-not-to-use or alternative framing (e.g., vs get_article for a direct fetch), keeping it short of a 5.

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