search_academic_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that multiple databases are queried, which is useful, but it does not disclose key behaviors an agent would care about: return format, result limits, pagination, deduplication across sources, or failure/partial-failure behavior when one database is unreachable.

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?

A single sentence that is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the source list. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.

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 only 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the input side adequately. However, there is no output schema and the description never mentions what the tool returns (e.g., papers with titles, authors, years, relevance ordering), leaving the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 both parameters well. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that 'query' can be a topic, keywords, or research question and that 'source' maps to the listed databases, but it does not go beyond the schema's existing detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Searches') with a concrete resource ('top-tier academic databases') and even names the exact databases (Crossref, Semantic Scholar, DBLP, arXiv). An agent can immediately understand what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 intended use case is implied by the description ('papers matching a topic, keywords, or research query'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any stated exclusions. With no sibling tools provided, some implied usage is acceptable, but the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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