search_papers

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

Beyond read-only annotations, it discloses a key behavior: attachment matches are resolved to parent papers, and it states the result does not claim which attachment field matched—so users know the limitation.

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 three sentences, concise, and front-loads the primary purpose without superfluous detail.

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?

The tool is simple; the description covers the main search behavior and directs to get_paper_text for follow-up, but does not mention pagination or output summary, though those are likely covered by the output schema.

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?

Only the query parameter is described (as a phrase query); limit and offset lack descriptions in the schema and are not explained in the description, so semantics are incomplete for two of three parameters.

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 tool searches paper metadata and Zotero-indexed full text with a phrase query, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve specific papers or text.

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?

It gives explicit follow-up guidance to use get_paper_text for inspecting matched PDF text and notes that matches are resolved to parent papers, but does not explicitly contrast with get_paper.

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