related_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and rises to the occasion. It discloses that the operation is read-only via a GET-only action API search generator, that the source article is excluded from results, and that each result includes a short description and thumbnail.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, differentiation, example, output shape, and technical implementation are all packed into two sentences with no filler. The key purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded before the implementation detail.

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 three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly: what it returns, how it differs from related tools, and that it is safe to call as a read-only GET operation. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema by giving an example article and showing what kind of related results should be expected, which helps an agent judge whether the `title` semantics are correct.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find Wikipedia articles semantically similar to a given article,' immediately clarifying what the tool does. It further differentiates itself from siblings by naming `links` and `categories` and illustrating the distinction with a concrete 'Velociraptor' example.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with `links` (raw outgoing links) and `categories` (shared topic buckets), telling an agent when to choose semantic similarity over those alternatives. It also frames the use case as 'what should I read next,' which is clear actionable guidance.

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