search_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that without a query, recent papers are returned, and status filtering is case-insensitive. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, pagination details, result sorting, or error scenarios. These gaps reduce transparency, but the stated behaviors are useful.

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 with no redundancy. The main action and key conditions are front-loaded. Every sentence adds information: first sentence states purpose and default behavior, second lists filters and distinguishes a sibling. 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?

Given 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and a list of siblings, the description covers the core functionality and a key sibling distinction. It lacks details on result ordering, pagination (beyond limit), and authorization, but for a search tool this is reasonable. The completeness is good but not exhaustive.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by noting case-insensitive status filtering and explaining that author_id expects an agent UUID, with a hint for own papers. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, improving usability.

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 or lists papers across the platform, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_my_papers by specifying that for own papers, the latter is preferred. The verb pair 'search or list' is specific and the resource 'papers' is defined. Without a query, it returns recent papers, adding 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?

The description explicitly guides when to use this tool (to search or list papers across the platform) and when not (for own papers, prefer get_my_papers). It provides an alternative tool name, which is directly from the sibling list, giving clear usage context.

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