search_papers

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (title, authors, abstract, citations, DOI) and that advanced Scopus syntax is accepted, but it is silent on authentication, rate limits, result caps, and pagination behavior for an API-backed search.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return value then syntax support. No filler, though the final sentence partially duplicates the query examples already present in the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metadata fields, which is the key gap it needs to cover. It falls short only on sibling differentiation and operational behavior, which matter for an 8-parameter search tool with a near-duplicate sibling.

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's restatement of query syntax (TITLE(), ABS(), AUTHOR(), KEY(), SRCTITLE(), PUBYEAR) adds a little beyond the schema's own examples, but it says nothing about the pagination, sorting, or field-selection parameters.

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 and resource ('Search for academic papers on Scopus') plus the searchable dimensions (keywords, title, author, criteria). It is clear on what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling 'search_papers_advanced', leaving the agent to guess which of the two search tools to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of 'keywords, title, author, or other criteria', which suggests the general-purpose search entry point. However, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the closely related 'search_papers_advanced' sibling is not addressed at all.

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