search_paper_text

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

Given annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable non-obvious behaviors: suppression of high-overlap near-duplicates, preference for section-diverse hits, and the use of bounded substring matching. It does not fully describe the output format or error conditions, but what it provides goes clearly beyond the annotations.

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 tightly written in three sentences with no wasted repetition. The core purpose is front-loaded, then the deduplication/diversity behaviors are added, and finally the technology-focused scoping is stated. Each sentence contributes useful selection and invocation information.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the main behaviors: scope to downloaded papers, substitution search, bounded results, section offsets, and near-duplicate suppression. It does not explicitly describe failure behavior for missing downloads or give a detailed return shape, but with no output schema and a simple matcher, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 already covers all 4 parameters at 100%, including case-insensitive substring behavior and default values for max_passages and passage_chars. The description adds context about bounds and diversity but does not need to restate parameter details; the baseline 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 states a specific action — searching a downloaded paper for bounded matching passages with section/source offsets — which clearly defines what the tool does. It also differentiates via 'substring search' and 'no Torch' from semantic_search and search_papers siblings, making the tool's specific role apparent.

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 gives clear context: it is for substring search within a single downloaded paper, implying use when the agent needs exact lightweight matching rather than semantic similarity or cross-paper search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops slightly short of full usage routing.

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