pubmed_find_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and repeatability profile. The description adds the relationships explored (similar/reviews) and the intended purpose, but does not disclose return format, ordering, or external call behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with fully documented annotations and schema, the description provides adequate context for invocation and purpose. The absence of an output schema means a brief note about return format would be useful, but the tool's relative simplicity makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 documents all three parameters, their defaults, and the enum for 'type'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Find' and a clear resource: articles related to a given PubMed article. It further clarifies the two relationship types (similar papers or review articles) and positions it as distinct from a general search by requiring an existing key paper as input.

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 explicitly says to use this tool after identifying a key paper to expand the search in relevant directions, giving clear workflow context for when it should be invoked. It does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., pubmed_search for initial keyword queries), so it falls short of an explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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