search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the result structure and the need for keys, but it does not mention matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy), pagination, result limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps.

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 front-loaded with the action, uses three concise sentences, and includes no redundant details—every sentence serves a purpose.

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 output schema covers return values, the description sufficiently covers purpose, result fields, and downstream tool usage. A brief mention of how it differs from list_library would make it more complete, but it is adequate as-is.

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 provides zero coverage for the single 'query' parameter, but the description clarifies that it is a title/author search term, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 papers by title or author') and the specific resource, and differentiates from siblings by mentioning the returned fields and how to use the key with paper_details or paper_text.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching by title/author) and explains the follow-up usage of keys with related tools, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with list_library.

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