find_related_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from a recommendation model rather than citation links, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about ranking, result quality, or that recommendations may be approximate or unavailable for obscure papers.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is a sentence fragment that omits a verb and leaves the tool under-specified. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, rich schema and annotations, output schema present), so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for an open-world recommendation tool sitting among six closely related paper-retrieval siblings, one clause about when to prefer it over those siblings would be needed for full completeness.

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%: paper_id's accepted formats and limit's bounds are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (papers similar to a seed paper) and the mechanism (Semantic Scholar's recommendation model), which is specific enough to distinguish it from citation-listing siblings like get_citations and get_references. It falls short of a 5 because the verb is elided into a noun phrase and it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_papers or get_references, even though 'similar papers' overlaps heavily with those siblings. The seed-paper framing implies the context, but the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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