find_related_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'NCBI elink' hinting at an external API call, but does not disclose rate limits, the definition of 'related', error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. Critical safety information is missing.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is concise but under-informative for a tool with two parameters and no annotation support.

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 the 0% schema description coverage, lack of annotations, and presence of multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention how 'max_results' affects behavior, what the output structure is (despite an output schema existing), or any constraints like valid PMID format.

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%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names. 'pmid' is self-explanatory, but 'max_results' is left ambiguous (e.g., maximum number of results? upper bound? pagination?).

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 verb ('find') and resource ('related PubMed articles'), and specifies the mechanism ('through NCBI elink'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_pubmed (which finds articles by query) and fetch_pubmed_articles (which fetches by PMID).

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 usage when you have a PMID and want related articles, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_pubmed for broader topics) or any prerequisites or limitations.

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