find_similar_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the data source (OpenAlex), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about how relatedness is computed, determinism of results, or result volume.

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 fragment with no padding, which is good. However it is under-specified rather than concise, and the fragment form gives the agent no structured entry point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool with a required, undocumented identifier parameter and three adjacent sibling retrieval tools, the definition omits the input format and routing guidance an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 carries the full burden for the identifier and limit parameters. It never states what identifier format is accepted (DOI, OpenAlex ID, PMID?) nor what limit controls — a real risk for the single required parameter.

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 phrase names a specific resource ('Papers OpenAlex considers related to this one') and, by resting on relatedness rather than citations, implicitly separates itself from get_citing_papers and get_referenced_papers. It stops short of a verb-led statement of what the tool does, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools, even though get_citing_papers, get_referenced_papers, and search_literature all occupy nearby territory. The agent must infer that 'related' means OpenAlex's similarity signal rather than citation links.

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