oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (retrieves cross-referenced documents), how relationships are determined (three specific criteria), and what the output includes (relationship type and confidence score). However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, output details second, parameter explanation third. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy. The three-sentence format is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's moderate complexity (relationship discovery), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, relationship criteria, output structure, and parameter semantics. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains that 'doc_id' is 'The integer database ID of the document,' providing crucial context about what this parameter represents and its format, which the bare schema (type: integer) doesn't convey.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get documents cross-referenced') and resource ('with the given document'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on relationship discovery rather than retrieval, creation, or modification operations. It explicitly mentions what makes documents 'related' (shared visit dates, diagnoses, explicit 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?

The description implies usage context (when you have a document ID and want to find related documents), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_documents' or 'get_document'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative advantages over sibling tools.

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