search_papers

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

The description mentions 'store their information', indicating a side effect of persisting data. However, it does not disclose details such as where storage occurs, whether results are returned, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing parameters or side effects).

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 two parameters, no annotations, one sibling tool, and an existing output schema (not provided), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage (especially max_results), return value (despite output schema existing), side effects of storage, and differentiation from sibling. The description does not adequately compensate for the schema's lack of description.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It specifies the 'topic' parameter implicitly ('based on a topic') but does not explain the 'max_results' parameter or any constraints/format for either parameter. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter names and types.

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 'Search for papers on arXiv based on a topic and store their information', which specifies the verb (search), resource (papers on arXiv), and action (store). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'extract_info', though the verb 'search' vs 'extract' provides implicit 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_info', nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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