search_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses deduplication logic (DOI/arXiv id) and sorting by citation count, which are behavioral traits beyond a generic search description. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add key behaviors (dedup, sorting) without wasting words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main search behavior, deduplication, sorting, and filtering, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema handles return structure, so no additional description is needed.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains the sources and year range filters ('Optionally restrict to specific sources or a year range'), but does not clarify the 'limit' or 'query' parameters. This is partial compensation, leaving some reliance on self-explanatory parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('academic papers'), enumerates the exact sources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_code and search_standards. It also adds deduplication and sorting details, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states the tool searches academic papers and notes optional source/year filters, implying use for scholarly literature queries. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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