search_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that no API keys are needed, defines result limits per source, and explains the return payload fields. It also tells the agent to feed pdf_url into the document tool, which is useful downstream 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 tightly structured with a one-sentence summary, a compact Args list, and a short Returns note. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important purpose and access facts appear first.

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?

Given the tool has only four parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers how to call it: query is required, defaults are provided, source differences are explained, and the return fields are listed. The routing note to the document tool adds helpful cross-tool context without unnecessary detail.

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 for all parameters. It does: query gets a free-text example, limit gets source-specific bounds, source gets its two possible values with meanings and default, and category gets an optional arXiv filter example. This is strong compensation for the schema gap.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search academic papers via arXiv or Crossref'. It clearly distinguishes from the generic sibling tool 'search' by explicitly scoping to academic papers and naming the two supported sources.

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 clearly states the tool is for academic paper search and gives guidance on choosing between 'arxiv' and 'crossref'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus other search-related siblings, but the academic scope is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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