Search Paper Snippets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (~500-word excerpts, section names) which is valuable, but doesn't cover rate limits, permissions, result ordering, or pagination 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?

Front-loads the key differentiator (full-text search) then lists parameters efficiently. Slightly list-heavy but each line earns its place with an example.

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?

Covers the core behavior and parameters well for a search tool but leaves gaps in result ordering, pagination, and explicit guidance vs siblings. With no annotations and no output schema, a bit more behavioral context would help.

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. It documents all six parameters with examples ('2020-2024', 'NeurIPS', 'Computer Science'), adding meaningful semantic context beyond bare types, though it doesn't state that year accepts ranges explicitly beyond the example.

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 a specific verb+resource (search full text of papers) and explicitly distinguishes scope from title/abstract searching, which separates it from siblings like search_papers. Description of returning ~500-word excerpts with section names is concrete and specific.

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?

Implies usage via 'within the full text of papers, not just titles/abstracts' but doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over search_papers or bulk_search_papers. The contrast hints at selection criteria without a clear directive.

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