search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search mechanism ('semantic + keyword search over a structured, summarized corpus') and the return format ('6-part summary', 'authors + affiliations', 'pdf_url', 'github_url'), adding valuable context beyond the schema without contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a usage sentence, and a return-value sentence. No filler or redundancy, with the most important information front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description gives a thorough explanation of what is returned (6-part summary, authors, affiliations, URLs). Combined with the use-case guidance and clear search scope, it fully covers the tool's behavior for an agent in this complex domain.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the 7 parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail. The description does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the overall tool behavior, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with a clearly defined resource: 'academic papers from arXiv and major AI/CV/ML/robotics/NLP conferences'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_similar_papers (similarity search), research_insight (insights), and library_save/list (library operations).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'for "find papers on X", "latest research about Y", "recent conference work on Z", or to start a literature review'. It provides clear context for use, but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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