search_papers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses rate limiting and retry behavior. Does not mention auth requirements, side effects, or behavior when no results found. Basic transparency is present 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?

Description is concise, with purpose stated first, followed by constraints and parameter details. No redundancy. Could be slightly shorter, but effective structure.

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?

Covers all parameters, rate limiting, and engine behavior. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. Does not mention input validation or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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 description explains all 5 parameters in detail: query (with example), num_results (range and default), year_low/high (meaning), engine (options). Adds significant value beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states '搜索学术论文' (search academic papers) with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as analyze_relevance, get_paper_detail, etc., which have different purposes.

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?

Provides clear guidance on engine choices: bing (no proxy), google (needs proxy), auto (failover). Also mentions built-in rate limiting. However, does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, though siblings serve different functions.

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