search_papers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return type ('Aggregated dictionary with per-source stats, errors, and deduplicated papers'), and notes that the year filter is limited to Semantic Scholar. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with Args/Returns sections, front-loading the main purpose. The list of sources is long but informative. Every sentence adds value, though the sources list could be condensed without losing clarity.

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 many per-source search siblings, the description positions this as a unified search, covering return format and source selection. It is largely complete for a top-level aggregation tool, though it could explicitly mention deduplication and cross-source harmonization.

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 description must compensate. It lists available sources with a default, and clarifies the year parameter's scope (Semantic Scholar only). However, it does not explain other parameters like max_results_per_source beyond their names, nor provide format constraints.

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 it is a 'unified top-level search across all configured academic platforms', which specifies the verb (search) and resource (academic platforms). It distinguishes from per-source search siblings by being 'top-level', but could be more explicit about aggregating multiple sources.

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 this is the recommended tool for broad searches by calling it 'top-level', but does not explicitly state when to use this versus per-source search_* tools. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling names.

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