get_related_documents

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

The description lacks explicit mention of side effects or safety (e.g., read-only). The name suggests a read operation, but without annotations, the description should clearly state it only reads. However, it does list output fields, providing some transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and key output details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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, the description adequately specifies the output structure (type, number, date, direction, depth). However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases, which are minor omissions for this simple tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds context by explaining the concept of chains and the output fields, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 finds documents related via chains of 'Input on basis' and lists the output fields (type, number, date, direction, depth). It distinguishes from siblings like get_document_list or check_references.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_document_list, check_references). The description implies its use for chain-related documents but does not clarify when not to use it.

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