Find Research Papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds that it finds real academic papers from multiple databases, which is useful context but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. With good annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence followed by a list of triggers. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a concise structure. The list is somewhat long but serves as useful guidance.

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 the high parameter count, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for tool selection (when to use, trigger phrases). It does not explain output format, but the purpose is clear. Complete enough for a tool with strong annotations.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds trigger phrases but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is justified.

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 explicitly states the tool finds academic research papers for security topics, with a specific verb and resource. It lists many trigger phrases, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated to paper searching.

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 clear when-to-use guidance by listing explicit user phrases and contexts (e.g., 'research papers', 'citations', 'arXiv', vulnerability topics). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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