search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a candidate list, includes truncated abstracts, and requires the caller to choose the most matching paper—useful behavioral context. It does not mention any side effects or response structure details, but for a read-only search this is largely sufficient.

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: two sentences, with the primary function and return fields front-loaded, followed by the workflow guidance. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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 relatively simple search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool returns, the expected workflow, and the caller's responsibility to pick a match. The connection between paperid and get_paper_detail is implied but could be slightly more explicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query semantics (title/partial/keyword) but does not add meaningful detail about max_results or auto_detail_on_single beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches Baidu Academic by paper title (supporting partial titles/keywords) and returns a candidate list with a detailed set of fields. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_paper_detail by describing the typical flow of first searching then fetching details.

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 'typical flow' explicitly positions search_papers as the initial step before calling get_paper_detail, and instructs the caller to manually select the best match. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_paper_citations or state when not to use the tool.

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