Search Academic Papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose that only open databases (Crossref, SciELO) are searched and that matching happens on DOI, title and abstract, which signals a read-only, public-data operation. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, rate limits or what happens when a source is unavailable, which matters for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource and sources before the use case. Nothing is redundant. The second sentence is generic but earns its place as the only usage signal in the description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers sources, searchable fields and a use case, but for a multi-source search tool with no annotations it omits result ordering/merge behavior across Crossref and SciELO and the effect of `limit`. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 and it partially does: naming Crossref and SciELO explains the `source` enum values, and 'por DOI, título e resumo' clarifies what the required `query` string is matched against. The `limit` parameter (default 5) is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (busca) plus resource (artigos científicos recentes) and names the two data sources (Crossref, SciELO) and the fields searched (DOI, título, resumo). An agent immediately knows this is a bibliographic search tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling fetch_bibtex_by_doi, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence ('Útil para embasar fundamentação teórica e capítulos de revisão bibliográfica') gives a use-case context, so the purpose-stage of a literature review is implied. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as fetch_bibtex_by_doi for known DOIs or validate_citations for verification. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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