find_related

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions it uses Semantic Scholar (external API) and returns JSON, but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. It is adequate but not thorough for a no-annotation scenario.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: one line for purpose, one line for method, then bulleted args and return. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with overall purpose.

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?

Has output schema and describes return format. Covers key aspects like parameters and method, but lacks details on error handling, rate limiting, or performance. Fairly complete for this complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing each parameter with clear explanations (doi, limit with default/max, min_citations, check_library with behavior). Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 finds papers related to a given paper using Semantic Scholar with SPECTER2 embeddings. It uses specific verbs and clearly identifies the resource, differentiating it from siblings like search and get_references.

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 for semantic similarity-based relatedness rather than citation-based, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Provides implied context but no exclusions.

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