Search Security Papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes 'keyword: Search in paper titles' and the available tier/conference filters, but omits details like result ordering, pagination, or response structure. This leaves moderate gaps but no contradictions.

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 opens with a clear, direct purpose sentence and then organizes filters in a scannable bullet list. It is slightly longer than necessary due to schema duplication, but remains efficient and readable.

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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers the main filters and scoping. It omits the 'limit' parameter, but the schema fully documents it. Overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minor value by clarifying 'keyword' is title-only and showing conference keys, but mostly reiterates schema information.

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 ('security research papers') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by listing the conferences covered. It also enumerates the filtering dimensions, providing a precise scope.

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 states clear use cases: searching papers by keyword, author, year, conference, and tier. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer siblings like get_conference_papers or list_conferences, but the search-oriented context is unambiguous and sufficient.

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