Search papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that results include provenance and transparent ranking, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'verified,' result formatting, pagination, or any limitations, so it only partially satisfies this dimension.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. Every clause adds information: the action, the source scope, the verification, and the output character. No filler or redundant restatement of the name/title.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not specify how filters interact, what the result object looks like, or what constraints apply to cross-source metadata search, so an agent cannot reliably craft valid calls beyond the required query.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of limit, topic, venue, author, year_from, or year_to. The phrase 'across arXiv and Crossref' gives some context for the query parameter, but the other six parameters are left entirely to the agent's inference.

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 identifies a specific action (Search), a concrete resource (verified scholarly metadata), and the data sources (arXiv and Crossref). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like vector_search, search_within_paper, or get_paper, which operate on different scopes.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over search_within_paper, vector_search, or get_related_papers. The description neither names alternatives nor states exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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