similar_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the Inciteful citation-graph mechanism, optional OpenAlex enrichment via exact DOI matches, ID resolution to DOI/PMID, and the caveat that graph coverage may be narrower than OpenAlex. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 focused sentences (~40 words) with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by enrichment detail and a coverage caveat. Every sentence earns its place; it's both concise and well-ordered.

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 read-only tool with three parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, how input IDs are handled, the optional enrichment, and a key limitation. It doesn't describe the response shape or the exact semantics of 'limit', but given the simplicity and the annotations, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly. A 4 reflects this nearly complete picture.

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 only 33% (only 'id' has a description). The tool description partially compensates: it clarifies 'enrich' via 'optionally enriched with OpenAlex metadata' and explains ID handling for 'id' ('OpenAlex IDs are resolved to DOI/PMID first'). However, the 'limit' parameter is left entirely undocumented, and no default/range context is given. The description adds some value but doesn't fully cover the gap, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Find[s] related literature using Inciteful citation graph similarity,' which is a specific verb, resource, and method. It implies a similarity-focused search distinct from search_papers or get_paper, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not. Slightly more differentiation would earn a 5.

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 the use case (finding related literature) but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like discover_papers or literature_review, nor when not to use it. It mentions the enrichment option but doesn't state conditions for choosing alternatives. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer.

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