search_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that papers without abstracts are discarded, the default year range, and the return format (aggregated dict with stats and errors). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention rate limits or authentication.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, return format note, and a separate 'Args' section. It is concise, using only necessary sentences with no redundant 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers key behaviors (discarding abstracts, defaults) and return format. It could mention duplicate handling or limit details, but it is largely sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. The 'Args' section adds significant value by describing each parameter, including default values, source groups (e.g., 'medical', 'cs'), and how to disable year filtering. This goes well beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 'Unified top-level search across all configured academic platforms' and lists the specific return fields (cite_key, title, abstract, year, source). It distinguishes from siblings like library_search by being top-level and cross-platform.

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 explicit parameter details including default values, source groups, and year filtering behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose and parameter details guide appropriate use.

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