hf_papers_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the search action, with no disclosure of result ordering, return format, or any limitations. Even for a simple read operation, it lacks behavioral detail.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description is acceptable but leaves out result format and edge cases. No output schema exists, so the agent must infer what 'search' returns. It could do more, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at the minimum viable level.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema – 'by keyword' clarifies query semantics but adds nothing about limit or examples. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 'Search Hugging Face papers by keyword' – a specific verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hf_papers_daily and hf_papers_info, which likely serve different purposes.

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 clear usage context: 'Use to find research relevant to current engine work.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' threshold.

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