search_control_science_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether results are sorted by relevance, whether pagination is supported, what the output format looks like, whether it requires prior access to a library, or what 'Default-first' means operationally. With zero annotation coverage, the description fails to disclose essential behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no waste, which is structurally clean. However, it's under-specified — this is brevity at the expense of usefulness rather than genuine conciseness, but it's not verbose or bloated.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which does some explanatory work) and 6 parameters, the description provides almost no operational context. It doesn't mention filtering semantics, default behaviors in detail, or how the 'Default-first' mode differs from alternatives. For a tool with several configuration parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 adds nothing about parameters. None of the 6 parameters (query, sort, year_from, year_to, language, max_results) are explained beyond their schema titles and defaults. The description contributes zero semantic value over the bare schema.

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 'Default-first search for control science and engineering journal papers' names the resource (journal papers) and field (control science/engineering), but lacks a specific verb — it doesn't explain what 'Default-first' means or what the search actually finds/returns. It doesn't differentiate behavior beyond being a generic search, and there are no sibling tools to distinguish against.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'Default-first' implies it's a default option, but no alternatives are named and no exclusions or special conditions are described. Context about what types of searches are appropriate is entirely absent.

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