search_papers

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that results are deduplicated, merged, and sorted by a composite score, and lists the fields returned. It does not mention caching, rate limits, or authentication, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the key purpose and scope, then adding details on deduplication and output fields. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 the complexity (9 sources, deduplication) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects. It could mention pagination or that max_results is total, but it is largely adequate.

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%, but the description adds value by contextualizing the query parameter as searching across 9 sources, which is not in the schema. It enriches understanding of how max_results controls the output.

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 academic papers across 9 named sources, returning deduplicated merged results sorted by cross-source hits and citation count. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like collect or filter_duplicates by focusing on cross-source 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 the tool is for searching papers across sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like filter_duplicates or pool_refresh. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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