search_papers_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing beyond the fact that it searches -- it omits whether results are paginated, whether it is a read-only operation, what limits apply, or how criteria combine (AND/OR). For an 11-parameter search this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the value proposition front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence largely repeats the parameter list already visible 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?

Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing return shape, pagination interplay with start/count, and how multiple criteria are combined. The schema is thorough on inputs, but the description leaves the result-handling and combination behavior to inference.

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 every parameter already carries its own description and the baseline is 3. The description restates the criteria names already documented in the schema and adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('structured advanced search') and enumerates the combinable criteria (author, keywords, journal, affiliation, year range, document type), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. The 'advanced' qualifier implies a distinction from the sibling search_papers, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation remains inferential.

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 phrase 'without needing Scopus query syntax' implies when this is preferable to a raw-syntax search, which is useful context. However, it never names search_papers (or any sibling) as the alternative, nor does it state conditions where a simpler or single-criterion search would be the better choice.

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