Find related papers

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), yet the description adds genuine behavioral detail: every result carries a one-line abstract, and a 'showing line' reports the current page, the total related-paper count, and the next page token. That is useful return-shape context given there is no output schema. It does not cover failure modes for malformed or unresolvable identifiers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then value proposition, then pagination behavior, then inputs and an example. It is a bit run-on in a single block and restates the page/limit ranges already in the schema, which is minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing result contents (one-line abstract) and the pagination envelope (current page, total count, next page). Identifier formats, defaults, and caps are all present, so an agent can call and interpret this correctly without opening anything else.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining the interaction between the page parameter and the 'showing line' output ('Pass the page the showing line names'), which is not in the schema. The paper identifier formats are repeated from the schema but reinforce the accepted DOI/URL/OpenAlex-id variants inline.

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 and resource ('Lists the papers that OpenAlex lists as related to a given paper') and scopes it to topical similarity, which meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like find_citing_papers and paper_references. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a clear motivating use case ('find more work on the same topic') and a concrete example prompt anchoring invocation. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or pointing to find_citing_papers/paper_references as the alternative for citation-based discovery.

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