search-papers

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

Adds substantial non-annotation context: concurrent querying, per-provider limit, pagination token usage, filters applying to fetched pages, partial failures remaining visible, and detail=compact omitting field_sources. Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, so this is rich supplementary behavior.

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?

Single dense paragraph front-loads purpose and defaults, then packs pagination, filter, failure, and detail guidance. Some terms like next_offsets assume output schema knowledge, but overall no wasted sentences.

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 10-param, multi-provider search with output schema, the description covers key non-obvious behaviors and routing to resolve-paper. It omits explicit semantics for several filter/boolean params, though their names are suggestive, leaving minor gaps.

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% with 10 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies limit scope, detail behavior, and cursor/offset paging, but leaves providers, year_from, year_to, open_access_only, include_abstract, and query constraints unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'scholarly sources', names default providers, and notes concurrent execution. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like related-papers, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Explains pagination workflow (next_offsets vs next_cursors), notes limit is per provider, and directs to full or resolve-paper for field_sources. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or broader alternatives beyond resolve-paper, but context is clear.

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