Get conference papers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about sorting (recency vs citations) and pagination (limit/offset), which is beyond annotations.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose: first tells when to use, second explains sort and pagination.

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?

All essential aspects are covered: conference, year, sorting, pagination. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is complete for its intended use.

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 meaning by clarifying the sort parameter with intended values and providing a concrete example for the conference parameter. Pagination parameters are also briefly explained.

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 the tool retrieves papers from a specific conference with optional year filtering. Examples like 'most-cited NeurIPS 2024 papers' make the purpose concrete, and it is well-differentiated from sibling tools like search_papers.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks for papers from a specific conference' and gives usage examples. It implies alternative tools exist for non-conference queries but does not name them directly, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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