search_scihub

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 key behavioral traits: automatic mirror detection and PDF download capability. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if download fails, leaving gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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 front-loads the core functionality ('Search and download papers from Sci-Hub') and adds useful context ('Automatically detects and uses the fastest available mirror') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a tool with 3 parameters and mutation capability (download). It covers the purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on return values, error cases, or advanced usage, which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool handles both DOI and URL formats, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Search and download papers') and resource ('from Sci-Hub'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed by specifying the Sci-Hub source. It includes the unique capability of automatic mirror detection, which further differentiates it from generic search tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for searching Sci-Hub with DOI or URL inputs. It implicitly suggests alternatives like sibling tools for other sources (e.g., search_arxiv for arXiv), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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