search_papers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Search' without revealing behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or result ordering. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no wasted content, though it could be slightly more structured with additional key behaviors.

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 4 parameters (with 0% schema coverage) and an output schema (not visible), the description is too brief. It lacks information on pagination, result format, sorting, and filtering behavior. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned, leaving gaps in completenss.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions searchable fields ('title, abstract and keywords'). It does not explain the meaning of 'limit', 'category', 'discipline', or how filters combine. The schema property titles are self-explanatory, but the description adds no deeper semantics.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('CSL papers'), and the search fields ('by title, abstract and keywords'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_paper' (which retrieves a specific paper) and 'list_categories'/'list_disciplines' (which list metadata).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither lists exclusions nor explains scenarios where siblings would be more appropriate. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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