Exa find similar pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the non-obvious side effect that the seed page is fetched/read before searching, plus the deprecated-endpoint lineage. It says nothing about cost, rate limits, permissions, or whether results are cached (cache behavior is only exposed as a parameter).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and mechanism before the deprecation and mode notes. The '/findSimilar' deprecation reference is useful for migration context but is the least load-bearing sentence.

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?

A 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema: the description covers what it does and the mode/type interaction, but says nothing about what the results look like, cost of the call, or how to get full page content (e.g. via exa_contents). Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 coverage is 60%, so the schema covers the well-documented params (mode, focus, maxChars, noCache, excludeSourceDomain). The description's real contribution is the non-obvious interaction that search type follows the mode the way exa_search does — which explains the otherwise undocumented 'type' enum. It adds little for content, numResults, or raw.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find pages similar to a seed URL') and grounds it with concrete use cases (competitors, alternatives, related papers). It also explains the mechanism — read the seed page, run a semantic search from it — which distinguishes it from a plain query-based search like exa_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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a required seed URL tells the agent this is the tool for similarity-from-example, but the description never states when to prefer it over exa_search or exa_answer. The exa_search reference is about type-following behavior, not about tool selection.

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