Explore a work literature neighborhood

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the neighborhood is 'bounded'—implying a constrained result set—and the caveat that results are for discovery/review rather than clinical use. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by providing a necessary usage limitation.

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?

Despite the presence of a sibling tool get_publication_neighborhood, the description sufficiently conveys the operation, scope, and intended use. With an output schema and safety annotations present, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so both work_id and from_work_id are already documented in the input schema. The description only loosely echoes the main parameter ('one Noodle work identifier') and adds no new semantic detail about parameters, resulting in the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the exact resource: 'the bounded citation and semantic neighborhood around one Noodle work identifier.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_work_details (which fetches work details) and get_publication_neighborhood (which targets publications rather than works).

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 states the intended use case ('literature discovery and professional review') and an explicit non-use case ('not diagnosis or treatment'), giving agents clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or give explicit routing conditions, so it stops short of full 'when to use instead' guidance.

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