spraay_research_biomedical_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' line adds no new information. The cost disclosure ($0.002) is valuable but not deeply behavioral. The description doesn't elaborate on rate limits, output format, or side effects beyond the 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 very short with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. No fluff or repetition, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping related info. Efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could explain what 'related articles' means algorithmically or mention the source database. The scope (PubMed) is implied but not explicit. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with baseline descriptions for both parameters. The description's instruction to 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments' adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. No additional meaning or constraints are introduced.

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 retrieves related articles for a given PubMed ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_research_biomedical_by_pmid (which likely fetches a single article) and spraay_research_biomedical_search (which likely searches articles).

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 notes cost and read-only nature but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spraay_research_biomedical_by_pmid or spraay_research_biomedical_search. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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