paper_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the API sources, that they are free and keyless, the returned fields (year/authors/citations), and a one-day cache. This is substantive transparency for a read-only search tool, though it does not mention rate limits or result pagination.

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 three sentences plus a concrete example. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds return value details, positioning, cache behavior, and invocation example without fluff.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema and sensible defaults, the description covers the essential operational details: source APIs, no auth keys, return fields, cache, and an example call. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on max_results or how to customize sources, but defaults in the schema make the tool safely callable.

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 partially explains 'query' via the example and 'sources' by naming arXiv and Semantic Scholar, but it does not describe the source parameter format or the max_results parameter at all. The burden is only partially met.

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: 'Поиск научных статей: arXiv + Semantic Scholar'. It further differentiates itself from general search by framing results as 'первоисточники (tier 0), которых общий поиск почти не видит', which clearly separates it from sibling tools like web_search.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when searching scientific primary sources with coverage that general web search lacks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the positioning against general search is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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