firecrawl_research_search_papers

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

The description complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explaining the semantic search behavior and the benefit of diverse query framings. It does not contradict annotations. While rate limits or other behaviors are not mentioned, the description adds useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 very concise at two sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose and scope, and the second provides actionable usage advice. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

While the description explains the core functionality, it lacks detail on parameters other than 'query' and does not describe the output schema (which is absent). For a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, more information about filtering (by date, authors, categories) would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. The tool description only explains the 'query' parameter (natural-language topic) but does not clarify the purpose of `k`, `to`, `from`, `authors`, or `categories`. This leaves the agent guessing about the other five parameters.

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's purpose as the primary entry point for finding research papers by topic across multiple fields. It specifies the search method (semantic HyDE search), the return fields (paper id, title, authors, abstract), and the query type (natural-language). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like general web search (firecrawl_search) and other research tools.

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?

The description explicitly advises when to use this tool (for research paper search) and provides concrete guidance to run several distinct framings of the question for better recall. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies it is for paper discovery, not other types of searches.

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