omniseek_paper_recommend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying model (SPECTER + co-citation), that it surfaces very recent work outside the citation graph, and that results are ordered by S2 relevance and require re-judgment. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 key use case is front-loaded, but the description is repetitive: SPECTER/co-citation, the sibling contrasts, and 'very recent work' are each stated twice. The guidance could be condensed meaningfully without losing 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description supplies a return JSON skeleton, ordering guidance, seed ID formats, and alternative routing. This is complete for normal use; the only clear gap is limit semantics and possible empty/error responses.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'ids': accepted formats, one-vs-many semantics, and the OpenAlex source_id pitfall. However, 'limit' is never described, leaving its effect on 'n' and result count to be inferred only from the schema default.

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 use case: given a paper, get semantically similar papers via SPECTER embeddings. It explicitly contrasts this tool with omniseek_search (keyword) and omniseek_field_skeleton (citations), so an agent can clearly distinguish it from siblings.

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?

It states exactly when to use it ('Use WHEN you have a paper and want more like it'), what inputs to pass (arXiv IDs/DOIs/S2 IDs), and when to choose alternatives: citation neighborhood -> omniseek_field_skeleton, keyword search -> omniseek_search. It also includes a concrete OpenAlex ID-format warning that prevents a likely error.

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