Zovo Paper Finder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the upstream source (Crossref publisher records, Unpaywall for OA), the 30-works-per-call ceiling, and a negative-capability clause (no summarizing, no full-text reading, no quality judgement) that prevents misuse. It stops short of noting result freshness, ranking caveats, or what the returned bibliography file contains.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: capability and output, then mechanics and return ceiling, then explicit exclusions. The use case and the sibling routing are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler or restates the title.

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 read-only search tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it searches, what the results include, the 30-item cap, and the three things it will not do. Return-value structure is legitimately omitted because the output schema exists.

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 100%, so all seven parameters including enums, ranges and defaults are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter set (year range, minimum citations, open-access filter, sort) and adds only the minor provenance detail that the OA filter is backed by Unpaywall. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("literature list or reading list on a research topic") and immediately enumerates what the result carries: real citation counts, open-access links, and a bibliography file. It also explicitly disambiguates from both siblings by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

It gives both positive and negative routing conditions: use when the user wants a topic-based reading list, do not use for a single known paper (route to get_paper_network) or for formatting known DOIs (route to format_bibliography). Both alternatives are named with the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: metadata provenance from Crossref (real publisher records, not generated text) and a per-call volume limit. The only blemish is that the stated 'up to 50 DOIs' does not match the schema's maxItems of 60, which could confuse an agent about the true cap.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then outputs, then provenance, then limits and exclusions. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 spelled out, yet the description still names the export formats and their target managers (Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley). For a two-parameter read-only tool, an agent has everything needed 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the style enum and the DOI array format. The description adds little beyond restating the style options and a volume limit that conflicts with the schema's maxItems. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource (format a bibliography from DOIs), names the four supported styles, and names the concrete artifacts produced (APA/MLA/Chicago/IEEE reference list plus BibTeX and RIS files). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools find_papers and get_paper_network, which retrieve rather than format.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('when the user has a list of DOIs and wants a reference list') and then states exclusions: no titles, no web page URLs, no citation text, and no manuscript checking. That combination of when-to-use plus when-not-to-use is exactly what routes an agent correctly.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the description is free to spend its words on what annotations can't express: the upstream source is Crossref, the citing-works direction is unavailable, and the call surfaces BibTeX/RIS/CSV/PDF artifacts. A small gap remains around external-API cost or latency, but the disclosed source limitation is genuinely useful context.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the trigger and payload come first, the exclusions second. It is dense but every clause carries information; the trailing list of file formats and the 'no full text' note are borderline but still earn their place as scope boundaries.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it does supply the source, the directional limitation, and the sibling routing an agent needs. The one blemish is the inconsistency between 'the list of works that cite the paper is not available' and the limit parameter's promise of 'citing works', which could leave an agent unsure what limit actually controls.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that a single DOI is required; it adds no format or bounds detail for 'limit' beyond what the schema states, and it notably doesn't reconcile its 'citing works not available' claim with the schema's 'how many references and citing works to show'.

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 names a specific verb and resource (fetch the most-cited references plus citation count for one DOI) and frames the use case (backward snowballing). It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_papers by rejecting titles and topic search, so an agent can route between the two siblings without opening either 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?

It states the triggering condition ('when the user has one paper (DOI)'), the exclusions ('does not accept titles or search by topic', 'does not read full text'), and names the alternative tool (find_papers) for the excluded case. This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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