Get related papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as response format, pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or what 'provenance' means in practice.

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 brief and to the point, with no wasted words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, and the phrase 'with provenance' is unexplained, so the structure is not as effective as it could be.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% parameter description coverage, this description is too thin to let an agent correctly invoke the tool. It lacks parameter semantics, expected output, and relationship to sibling tools.

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 says nothing about paper_id or limit. The schema provides only type/default/min/max constraints, leaving the agent without any explanation of what each parameter means or how they affect the request.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Retrieve Semantic Scholar recommendations with provenance.' This is more specific than a mere restatement, but it does not distinguish the tool from related sibling tools like get_references or get_citations, and 'provenance' is vague.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 35 sibling tools including several retrieval-related options, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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