search_papers

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that results are returned as a 'compact list' with specific fields (DOI, title, authors, year, venue, citation count, OA status, top concepts). This gives a clear picture of output. However, it does not disclose the ordering ('by relevance' is vague), pagination limits, data freshness, or whether it requires authentication. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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: the first defines purpose and output, the second gives a usage hint. Every word is valuable. No redundancy or filler. The critical information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description adds enough context: it lists the return fields briefly. It covers the main parameters. It could mention that results are sorted by relevance or that the search uses OpenAlex API, but it's nearly complete for a simple search tool. A slight gap: no mention of how to interpret the fields (e.g., 'top concepts' format).

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 100% (all four parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds only one extra hint: 'Use `year_from`/`year_to` to constrain the publication year.' Since the schema already explains each parameter, the description provides marginal additional meaning. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description meets that.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Search academic papers by relevance via OpenAlex.' The verb 'Search' and resource 'academic papers' are specific. The mention of OpenAlex distinguishes it from potential other paper search tools. The list of return fields further clarifies scope. Among siblings, it clearly differs from get_paper (single paper retrieval) and find_oa_pdf (PDF link).

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?

Provides one specific usage hint: 'Use `year_from`/`year_to` to constrain the publication year.' This is helpful but doesn't offer guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., when to search vs. get a specific paper). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is minimal.

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