search_works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default search scope and a requirement for venue resolution, but does not mention pagination behavior (cursor/page), sorting, filtering details, rate limits, or output format. With 16 parameters, many behavioral traits are omitted.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 16 parameters, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not cover how to use most parameters, the return structure (despite an output schema existing but not described), or edge cases. A complex search tool requires more thorough documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies two parameters: 'search_in' defaults to title_abstract and 'venue_ids' should use resolved S-ids. The remaining 14 parameters are not explained, leaving the agent to infer from names and defaults.

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 states 'Search papers', which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_work (single paper) and search_authors (different resource). However, it could be more specific about the scope and what is returned.

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?

Provides two usage tips: default search scope (title+abstract) and that venue names should be resolved to S-ids first. Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_citing_works or get_references, nor when not to use it.

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