similar_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Local title-keyword similarity', which gives minimal context about the computation basis (local, title keywords) but says nothing about permissions, return format, rate limits, or side effects. A score of 2 reflects this very limited disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 fragment, not a properly structured sentence. While extremely short, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise—every sentence cannot earn its place because there is barely a sentence. A 2 reflects this lack of useful structure.

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 complexity of a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain when to use the tool, what it returns, or how the parameters work. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the missing behavioral and usage context.

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?

The tool has two parameters (paper_id, limit) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains them. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, so a 1 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 'Local title-keyword similarity' is a fragment that hints at the computation method but omits a clear verb and resource. It does not specify that the tool takes a paper_id and returns similar papers, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like search_local or search_fulltext. An agent would struggle to know exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_local or search_fulltext. The description provides no context, preconditions, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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