get_related_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'discovers similar research papers,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits such as being read-only, requiring authentication, or potential rate limits.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff or 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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of article titles, metadata). It only mentions 'similar research papers' without detailing the output format or fields, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 100% with parameter descriptions already provided. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so it meets 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding articles related to a specific publication and discovering similar research papers. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_publications, though it could explicitly mention the input parameter (cluster ID) for added clarity.

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 when to use (when you have a publication and want related ones), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternative tools. For example, it does not contrast with search_publications or list_papers.

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