search_literature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose core behavior: it searches multiple sources, normalizes metadata, returns metadata plus abstracts, and offers a deep mode with full text. It does not mention rate limits, errors, or explicit read-only confirmation, but for a search tool the stated output and mode behavior are substantive.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Every line adds information about a parameter or behavior, and there is no redundant filler.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, defaults, output content, and mode behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not relating this tool to sibling read/deep-research workflows, but it gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly in isolation.

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 the description compensates fully: query gets an example, sources are enumerated with a default, limit is defined as per-source maximum, and mode is explained semantically. This adds real meaning beyond the bare JSON Schema property names and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('跨源检索科学文献') and states the return value (normalized metadata + abstracts). It is clearly about cross-source search, but it does not explicitly compare itself with sibling tools such as read_paper or deep_research, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 Args block explains how to issue a query, but there is no guidance on when to choose search_literature instead of a sibling like read_paper, get_citations, or deep_research. The mode options distinguish fast vs deep internally but do not route the agent between this tool and alternatives.

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