find_similar

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute one genuine behavioral fact (the source URL is excluded from results), but omits what happens when the URL is not indexed, how similarity is determined, and whether results are ranked or paginated.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core purpose plus the key exclusion constraint are front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing written is wasteful.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: return shape, ranking, result count semantics, and failure conditions are all unstated, so an agent cannot reliably predict behavior.

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 compensate. It only hints that 'url' is the indexed source page; 'num_results' (default 10) is never mentioned in the description nor documented in the schema, leaving its meaning and default unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and result type ('find pages related to') plus a scoping detail ('excluding that source URL'). It is distinguishable from siblings like search and get_contents, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'related to an indexed URL' implies the input must already be in the index and that the caller wants neighbors rather than a query-based search, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given relative to the sibling tools.

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