find_related_articles

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

In the absence of annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool uses algorithm-based similarity and returns similar papers not based on citations. It would benefit from mentioning any potential limitations or rate limits, but overall it provides good transparency about the underlying mechanism.

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 well-structured with clear headings and ASCII art, but it is somewhat verbose. The front-loaded purpose and workflow sections are efficient, but the extensive formatting may be overly elaborate for the information conveyed.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and example workflow, and provides sufficient context for effective invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the pmid parameter's acceptable formats (e.g., '12345678', 'PMID:12345678', 12345678) and the limit parameter's range (1-50) and default value (5). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool finds articles related to a given PubMed article using PubMed's 'Related Articles' feature. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing that it is algorithm-based similarity, not citation-based, and includes a workflow section highlighting the differences among the three related tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including a workflow example and a comparison with sibling tools (find_citing_articles and get_article_references). It explains that this tool is for discovering similar research based on topics, MeSH terms, and authors, not citations, which helps in selecting the appropriate tool.

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