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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses default ordering (most cited first), pagination, the year floor of 2020, the per-call cost ('Free · 1 credit'), and the shape of returned fields. It stops short of explaining how to detect the last page, error behavior for unknown venue slugs, or whether citation counts are live.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource and scope, then usage examples, then cost tag — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler sentences. The first sentence is heavily comma-chained under semicolons, which packs a lot but reads as a dense enumeration rather than prose.

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?

Six parameters, two required, no annotations, and no output schema — yet the description effectively documents the return fields, which is the main gap it had to fill. Only minor items are missing (pagination limits beyond 'paginated', behavior on invalid venue/year), so an agent has enough 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 50%, and the description compensates by clarifying that q matches title/abstract and that status is an acceptance-type filter, also listing example values. However, page, page_size, and the exact accepted conference slug set are left to the schema or the '...' ellipsis, so half the parameters gain no extra meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Accepted papers of one venue-year'), then bounds it (2020 onwards), names example venues, and states sort order and pagination. The return payload is enumerated (status, primary area, citations, hype, code/project URLs), so an agent can tell this apart from author_papers or trending_papers without opening the schema.

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?

Gives three concrete invocation patterns: venue-topic lookup ('what was at CVPR 2026 on X'), building a reading list, and status='oral' for programme highlights. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never states when NOT to use it or names a sibling to route to instead (e.g. author_papers for author-scoped queries).

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