search_openreview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns papers with PDFs and review links and requires no API key. However, it does not mention any limitations (rate limits, data freshness), pagination, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function and examples, the second adds important usage (no API key) and output highlights.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It mentions returns PDFs and review links, which is helpful. The 3 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description covers the core functionality and a key behavior. It could mention that it only searches conference papers from specific venues, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mentions the venue examples but doesn't elaborate on format or constraints. It provides acceptable clarity but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 verb 'Search', the resource 'OpenReview conference papers', and provides example venues (ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_papers and search_authors by specializing in OpenReview conference papers. The extra details about no API key and returns with PDFs and review links add clarity.

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 usage when searching OpenReview conference papers, notes that no API key is required (simplifying use), and lists specific venues. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like search_papers or paper_info. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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