get_related_papers

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

Discloses that it returns canonical records without explanations, and that arXiv returns an unsupported operation error. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; good disclosure of limitations.

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?

Very concise with 7 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. Efficient structure for quick understanding.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, provider differences, output nature. Missing details on limit defaults, error handling beyond arXiv, and output schema is present but not referenced. Adequate for a recommendation tool.

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?

Explains paper_id as positive seed and negative_paper_ids for filtering, but does not describe limit or provider beyond noting arXiv doesn't work. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but misses some params.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves papers related to a specified paper, distinguishing it from siblings like search_papers or citations. Includes specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'academic paper'.

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?

Describes when to use this tool (for recommendations), mentions negative paper ids to refine results, and notes arXiv limitations. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons to all siblings, but context is clear.

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