pubmed_find_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety/behavioral profile. The description adds context about discovering similar papers or reviews but does not disclose additional behaviors such as handling of invalid PMIDs, pagination, or response format. Given the annotations, the description meets baseline but adds limited new behavioral insight.

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 exactly two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides actionable usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple tool with well-documented schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and guidance. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of 'Find articles related' implies the return of a list of related articles. It lacks explicit details about output format or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond restating what the schema already provides (e.g., 'similar papers or review articles' mirrors the 'type' enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find articles related to a given PubMed article.' It further distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'similar papers or review articles' and the workflow of expanding a search after identifying a key paper. This clearly differentiates it from pubmed_search, pubmed_get_details, etc.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use after identifying a key paper to expand your search in relevant directions.' This implies a workflow and distinguishes when to use this tool relative to an initial search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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