find_related_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that a valid PMID is required, how the limit parameter affects results, or any error/edge-case behavior. The description only states the output type without any behavioral details.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the key resource is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though for the purpose of conciseness it earns a high score.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of the input PMID or the meaning of limit, nor does it provide usage context. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the lack of parameter and usage context makes it insufficient.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters 'pmid' or 'limit'. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the text should have explained these parameters but does not, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for invocation.

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 'Find PubMed related article PMIDs.' uses a clear action verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as PubMed related article PMIDs. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_literature, which searches by query, and expand_from_work, which likely expands from a work record.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as 'use when you have a PMID and want related articles' or exclude cases better served by search_literature or expand_from_work. The description merely states functionality.

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