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. It states the search action across multiple sources but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, fields), whether it's read-only or has side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are aggregated. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resources without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what databases are searched and the target, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, return values, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It mentions 'for a topic' which loosely relates to the 'topic' parameter but doesn't explain the other four parameters (limit_per_source, from_year, to_year, open_access_only) or their effects. This fails to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 the resources (Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Europe PMC, arXiv, and Crossref) with a specific target ('for a topic'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_libgen' or 'search_scihub' by listing multiple academic databases, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'research_topic' or 'find_similar_papers' in terms of scope or methodology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose it over sibling tools like 'research_topic' or 'find_similar_papers', or any specific contexts where it's most appropriate. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit direction.

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