search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses federated querying across four sources, that year filters are honored only by OpenAlex and Crossref (a real behavioral caveat that changes result interpretation), the per-source-per-keyword semantics of size, and deduplication. It doesn't mention rate limits, latency, authentication, or empty-result behavior, but the core behavioral quirks are surfaced.

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 one-line purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by tightly scoped Args and Returns blocks. Every line adds information; nothing is repeated from the schema titles.

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 four-source federated search tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, per-parameter behavior, source-specific caveats, and return shape. Gaps are minor: no guidance on result volume expectations across four sources or on what happens when a source fails or returns nothing.

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 and it does: every parameter is explained with meaning beyond its name, including an example value for keywords, the source-specific applicability of year_from/year_to, and the default and maximum for size. An agent could call this correctly from the description alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search academic literature) and enumerates the four upstream sources (OpenAlex, arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Crossref), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling search_books. An agent can tell exactly what domain this tool covers without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete query-crafting advice: 2-5 focused queries, expand acronyms, add synonyms, use technical phrasing. This is actionable usage guidance rather than mere documentation. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. books vs papers vs export), so it falls short of a full 5.

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