search_papers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly explains the behavior of include_chunks (returns matched_chunks list of {text, score}) and notes it is free with no quota cost. It covers parameter defaults and optionality, but does not mention any side effects or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then uses a clear Args list. It is efficient but includes extraneous detail for include_chunks that could be shortened. Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks explicit return format for basic results (e.g., list of paper objects). The include_chunks detail is complete, but the overall output structure is assumed from context.

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%, but the description explains all 5 parameters (query, year, limit, collection_ids, include_chunks) with defaults and additional context (e.g., collection_ids default to ['anthology'], include_chunks output structure and cost). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Search papers by query (and optional year).' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('papers'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paper (retrieve single paper) and query_rag (likely RAG-based).

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 usage context for collection_ids (default anthologist, cross-collection) and include_chunks (useful for extractors). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like query_rag or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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