Paper Distill MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about deduplication, sorting logic ('cross-source hits + citation count'), and return fields, but doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling for a multi-source search operation.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers purpose and scope, the second details output behavior. Every element adds value with zero wasted words, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-source search) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the deduplication and sorting logic well, but could benefit from more behavioral context like performance expectations or source reliability notes.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query formatting tips or result limit implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 academic papers') and resource ('across 9 sources'), listing all sources explicitly. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'rank_papers' or 'filter_duplicates' by emphasizing cross-source searching and deduplication.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rank_papers' or 'filter_duplicates'. The description mentions what the tool does but doesn't specify appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for its use.

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