Search Academic Papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavioral trait: results are 'sanitized' abstracts with publication years, citation counts, and authors. It does not detail ranking, rate limits, or how 'sanitized' is defined, but for a search tool the return behavior and non-destructive nature are sufficiently conveyed.

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 concise sentences front-load the tool's purpose and output format. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 description is adequate at a high level given an output schema exists: it names sources and return fields, and parameter names hint at usage. However, it lacks parameter semantics, usage boundaries, and guidance on how to choose among siblings, leaving the agent to infer key call details.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Parameter names like query, top_k, and min_citations are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about valid ranges, filter behavior, or how year_start and year_end interact.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('peer-reviewed papers and preprints'), and specific data sources ('arXiv and Semantic Scholar') while listing return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_repo_implementations and fallback_web_search.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as fetch_paper_deep_context, search_repo_implementations, or fallback_web_search. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and description, so an agent gets no exclusion criteria or alternative routing hints.

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