search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the query searches across all fields (title, abstract, authors) but does not mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The read operation is implied, but not explicitly stated. An output schema exists, so return format is covered.

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, consisting of three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third adds search scope details. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the primary purpose, usage context, and search scope. It lacks details on the 'max_results' parameter and date format, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 mentions 'query', 'category', and 'date_from' but omits 'max_results'. It adds meaning for 'query' (searches across all fields) but does not explain the format for 'date_from' or category values. Overall, adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Search papers by query text, with optional category filter and date range.' It specifies it searches across title, abstract, authors, and distinguishes itself from 'search_arxiv' by claiming it is simpler.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user provides a natural language query like "papers about transformers" and optionally a category or start date.' It also compares to 'search_arxiv' for differentiation, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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