search_papers

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. States query searches all fields (title, abstract, authors). However, lacks details on result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Four sentences, each with a clear purpose. Could front-load usage guidance slightly, but overall efficient with no extraneous content.

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?

Output schema exists, reducing need to describe return values. With 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers basic usage and search scope but omits important details like default ordering, result limits, and error handling.

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%, but description only elaborates on query ('searches across all fields'). Omits max_results entirely. Category and date_from are mentioned as optional but without additional meaning.

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?

Clearly states it searches papers by query text with optional filters. Specifically distinguishes from sibling search_arxiv by calling it 'simpler' and listing the parameters.

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?

Explicitly advises use 'when the user provides a natural language query' and optionally a category/date. Mentions alternative search_arxiv but does not specify when to choose one over the other.

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