find_related_entries

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits), so it does not exceed the annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences and a structured Args list. It is front-loaded with the action statement. No wasted words, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 complexity of cross-database lookup and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and parameter examples. It does not explain the return format, but that is handled by the output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides concrete examples for entry_id ('hsa:1956') and target_db ('pathway'), which add essential meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 states 'Find related entries in another KEGG database for a given entry,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that are database-specific searches.

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?

The description implies usage context: when you have an entry ID and want to find related entries in a target database. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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