get_webofscience_related_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that records are 'gotten'; it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, authorization requirements, rate limits, or the fact that recordView is not accepted for references (which is left to the schema).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the main action and resource are stated immediately.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very thin. It omits how results are shaped, how pagination works, what the default behavior is, and when the tool is appropriate relative to overlapping siblings. The schema fills some gaps, but overall context is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning to the 'relation' parameter by translating enum values into human-readable phrases ('references, citing records, or related records'), but it does not explain uid, maxResults, firstRecord, or the recordView constraint beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly names the resource: references, citing records, or related records via the Web of Science Expanded API. It aligns with the relation enum and is understandable, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_citations', which may also return citing records.

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 enumerating the relation types (references, citing, related), telling the agent this is the tool to retrieve those specific relationship lists. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_webofscience or get_citations, and no exclusions are stated.

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