paper_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses available sources and some behavioral constraints (like year format restrictions and source-specific parameters), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like. The example helps but doesn't fully describe behavior.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It front-loads the purpose but then uses markdown headings that might not render well in all contexts. The example is comprehensive but lengthy. Some information could be more efficiently organized, though all content appears relevant.

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 (multiple sources with different parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It thoroughly documents parameters but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with 8 different sources and complex parameter interactions, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides extensive parameter semantics: lists all available sources, explains query length constraints, max_results range and default, year format with examples, and source-specific parameters (fetch_details for iacr, kwargs for crossref). The detailed example illustrates complex parameter usage, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 from multiple sources, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'paper_download' and 'paper_read' by focusing on search rather than retrieval or reading. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the description text itself.

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. There's no mention of sibling tools (paper_download, paper_read) or when search is appropriate versus downloading or reading papers. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context or prerequisites.

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