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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It offers none—no mention of result format, sorting, scope of 'academic papers,' or any side effects. This is a bare minimum statement with zero behavioral 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is highly concise, though it sacrifices substance for brevity. The efficiency is acceptable, but it leaves out critical information that would not compromise conciseness.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description should at least explain what 'academic papers' covers, how results are ordered, and how this relates to sibling search tools. It does none of this, leaving the agent with insufficient context to select or invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; the word 'simple' is the only extra hint, and it is vague. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Search') and the resource ('academic papers'), making the core purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'paper-search-advanced' or 'search_papers', relying solely on the 'basic' in the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternative search tools. The phrase 'simple query' implies a limited use case, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over advanced or source-specific search options.

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