find_related_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the lexical-similarity mechanism and the merge/deduplication/keep-highest-score behavior, which is useful, but does not mention read-only status, pagination behavior, rate limits, or failure cases.

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 three short sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the input/behavior details follow immediately.

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 moderate-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the core input and merge behavior are covered. Missing guidance on page_size and edge cases keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that seed_arxiv_ids accepts either a single arXiv ID or a list of IDs, but page_size is left unexplained beyond its schema title and default.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('papers') and a distinctive method ('lexical similarity' from seed papers), so it is clearly a related-paper lookup and not a generic search. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_papers, but the seed-paper framing makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for discovering papers related to known arXiv IDs, which gives an agent a reason to choose it over search_papers or get_paper. However, it never explicitly states when-not-to-use it or which alternative to prefer.

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