Paper Pilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what format results return, whether there are rate limits or authentication requirements, or what happens when no results are found. The single sentence offers no operational context beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration. While this brevity contributes to clarity gaps in other dimensions, as pure conciseness it's optimal.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides only basic purpose without explaining behavior, parameters, results format, or usage context. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (1 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'search_type' options exist, what 'allowed_extensions' controls, or how 'limit' affects results. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('search') and target ('LibGen mirrors'), with the purpose 'for supplemental research material' providing context. It distinguishes from obvious non-search siblings like 'download_scihub_paper' or 'render_pdf_pages', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'search_literature' or 'search_scihub'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'supplemental research material' but doesn't specify when to choose LibGen over SciHub or literature databases, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria among the multiple search-related siblings.

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