search_iacr

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it returns 'list of paper metadata.' It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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, with a single-sentence summary followed by a structured 'Args:' list and a 'Returns:' line. No extraneous information, and the most critical information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is a straightforward search function with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it omits details like default pagination behavior, maximum results limit beyond the default, and whether 'fetch_details' impacts latency, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, the description's 'Args:' section adds meaning by providing a short explanation and example for each parameter (e.g., query is 'search query string'), significantly compensating for the schema gap. However, it could be more detailed (e.g., format of 'fetch_details' results).

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 'Search academic papers from IACR ePrint Archive,' specifying the verb (search), resource (academic papers), and source (IACR ePrint Archive), effectively distinguishing it from sibling search tools targeting different archives.

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 like search_arxiv or search_dblp. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without comparative context.

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