Search Papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose concrete operating constraints (limit default 10 / max 100, offset default 0, open_access_pdf boolean semantics) which is useful, but it says nothing about result ordering, return payload shape, or rate/pagination behavior. A read-only search tool's safety profile is left implicit.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a scannable parameter list where each line is terse and earns its place. The long enum enumerations add bulk but are genuinely needed given 0% schema coverage.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the parameter surface is well covered, but the description never explains what a result contains or how results are ordered/ranked. The agent gets enough to invoke it, but not enough to interpret the response.

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% and there are no enums in the schema, yet the description documents every one of the 10 parameters with format examples and expected syntax (year ranges, ISO4 venue abbreviations, date format YYYY-MM-DD:YYYY-MM-DD). It also enumerates the full allowed value sets for fields_of_study and publication_types, which the schema does not. This fully compensates 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Search for academic papers') plus the key enabler ('by query with advanced filters'), so the agent knows immediately what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like bulk_search_papers or search_paper_snippets, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over bulk_search_papers, search_paper_snippets, or match_paper_by_title, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the parameter list rather than explained.

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