search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination (though 'limit' exists), data returned, or any side effects. The description provides no transparency beyond the basic search action.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly more informative while maintaining brevity.

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 complexity (nested filters, 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how to combine filters, or pagination behavior. The sibling tools suggest a rich ecosystem, but this description lacks contextual details for effective use.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not explain how the 'filters' object behaves, but the schema provides enough detail for a baseline score.

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 tool searches for research papers using keyword queries. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover_papers' or 'get_search_suggestions', which may offer similar functionality. A more specific scope or unique behavior would improve clarity.

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 alternatives, such as 'discover_papers' or 'get_paper'. The description also lacks information on potential prerequisites, limitations, or excluded use cases.

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