firecrawl_research_related_papers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint. Description expands with internal multi-round expansion behavior and mentions return format (candidates plus pool size). No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then usage guidance, then technical detail. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 no output schema, description mentions returns candidates plus pool size. Fully covers behavior, usage context, and parameter semantics for key parameters. No gaps.

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 low (20%). Description explains seed_ids (arXiv IDs), intent (natural-language), and mode (enum options). Adds value by noting internal expansion. However, k and rerank parameters are not explained in description.

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: expand from anchor papers via citation graph, ranked and filtered to intent. It distinguishes from siblings like firecrawl_research_search_papers by noting it finds papers plain search misses.

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?

Explicit guidance: use on 'best hits before finishing', explains one call suffices due to internal multi-round expansion, and contrasts with plain search. Also lists modes and their meanings.

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