Find Research Gaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: uses Science AI Journal credits, rate-limited to 10 requests/hour/IP, and describes the output composition comprehensively. This is thorough for a read-heavy research tool.

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 concise at four sentences, each carrying important information: purpose, outputs, usage constraints, and recommended use cases. No fluff or redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: cross-paper synthesis gaps, single-paper gaps, field overview, up to 50 top-cited and 50 most-recent papers. This is complete for a research gap tool.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic details beyond what the schema offers; it simply references the query and field without elaborating.

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's purpose: surfacing research gaps along with top-cited and most-recent papers. It details the outputs (cross-paper synthesis gaps, single-paper gaps, field overview, top papers) which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on different aspects like publication checking or writing pipeline.

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 explicit use cases: 'early-stage research discovery, literature gap identification, and proposal scoping.' It also mentions rate limits and credit usage, giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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