find_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add beyond that. It adds the use of the neighbor algorithm and ranking by relevance score, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe output structure or potential rate limits. 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 two tightly written sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action and resource, and the algorithm detail is added in the second sentence. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the purpose, input, and basic output (similar papers ranked by relevance). It could specify the output format in more detail, but given the annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to call it 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 parameters (pmid and maxResults) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 action (find related articles), the resource (given PubMed article), and the algorithm (PubMed's neighbor algorithm). It distinguishes this from sibling search tools like search_pubmed by specifying that it targets articles related to a specific PMID rather than general keyword search.

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 papers, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_pubmed or search_europepmc. No exclusions or comparative guidance are given, leaving some inference to the agent.

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