search_iacr

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 mentions 'Search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., paper titles, abstracts, metadata), performance characteristics (e.g., speed implications of fetchDetails), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The phrase 'slower' in the schema hints at performance but isn't elaborated in the description.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of papers with basic info), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., date ranges, sorting options). The lack of output schema means the description should compensate by detailing return values, which it doesn't.

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 all three parameters (query, maxResults, fetchDetails) with their types and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('IACR ePrint Archive for cryptography papers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from general search tools by specifying the IACR ePrint Archive, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_arxiv that also search academic repositories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_google_scholar), there's no indication that this is specifically for cryptography papers from IACR, nor any context about when it might be preferred over other search options.

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