Search whitepapers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: corpus size (600+ papers) and the shape of the result ('metadata + original source + blockchainlab.com link'), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits pagination/default-limit behavior, which is the one notable gap for a search endpoint.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. What it searches and what it returns are both front-loaded, so an agent gets scope and payoff immediately.

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 no output schema, the description correctly spends its words on the return shape and corpus scope, which is what an agent needs here. It falls short only on pagination and parameter-level detail for a tool that takes a limit.

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 coverage is 0% and no param carries a description or enum, so the description must compensate. It maps reasonably well onto query/topic/year ('by text, topic or year') but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, accepted formats, or defaults, leaving one of four params fully undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a precisely scoped resource ('Blockchain Lab's research corpus, 600+ blockchain whitepapers'), and the three search dimensions. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all on-chain data/utility tools rather than literature search.

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 implies usage by naming the search dimensions (text, topic, year), but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives. Adequate implied guidance, nothing explicit.

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