search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key pagination behavior: returns up to 1000 papers per call, no limit argument, and requires the token for the next page. However, it does not mention other behaviors like filtering semantics, output format, or any potential side effects. The disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and states the pagination constraint efficiently. 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?

With 11 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely under-specified. An agent cannot correctly construct a query without understanding parameters like fields_of_study, publication_types, min_citation_count, and publication_date_or_year. The output schema exists, but the input semantics are nearly absent, making this inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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. It explains the token parameter via pagination, but the other 10 parameters (query, sort, year, venue, fields, etc.) are left entirely to schema titles, which provide no semantic meaning. The description adds value only for the token, failing to clarify the rest.

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 action: running a bulk paper search request with pagination. It mentions the specific endpoint and the pagination behavior. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling search_papers_relevance, which likely orders by relevance, leaving ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_papers_relevance or get_papers. It only implies bulk retrieval via the word 'bulk', but does not state conditions for selection or exclusion.

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