find_related_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the ELink modes and efficiency benefits of linkname but does not mention authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the read-only nature of the operation. While it provides useful context, it leaves gaps in transparency for an agent.

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 concise (under 200 words) and well-structured: a purpose sentence followed by a bullet-like list of parameter explanations and two concrete examples. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the tool does not need to describe return values. The description covers all parameters, modes, and provides usage examples. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors, rate limits, or prerequisites for using the ELink service.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining all five parameters (ids, dbfrom, db, linkname, cmd) with clear semantics, defaults, and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose: 'Find related or cross-referenced records (ELink) for a list of UIDs.' This pairs a specific verb ('Find') with a resource ('related or cross-referenced records') and provides detailed parameter explanations and examples that distinguish it from sibling tools like search_pubmed or fetch_records.

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 offers clear guidance on when to use parameters (e.g., 'linkname restricts results... more efficient') and explains the cmd modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to specific sibling tools, missing a small opportunity for even clearer usage directives.

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