find_related_articles

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions high-level methods (citation networks, computational similarity). It does not indicate read-only behavior, potential rate limits, result ordering, or how relationship_type affects behavior beyond the schema. This leaves significant room for unexpected behavior.

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 two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds relevant context about the discovery mechanism. There is no redundant or extraneous 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?

The tool is relatively simple with an output schema, but the description lacks guidance on relationship types (similar, cited_by, cites) and when to use each. It also does not clarify typical use cases or constraints. The schema partially compensates, but the description alone is not fully contextually 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%, so the schema already explains 'pmid', 'max_results', and 'relationship_type'. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, only hinting at the similarity/citation mechanism. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: finding articles related to a source article. It specifies the resource (source article) and the mechanism (citation networks and computational similarity), which differentiates it from generic search tools like 'pubmed_search' or 'global_search'.

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 when you have a source article and want related literature, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and schema.

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