match_paper_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose return behavior, error handling, and matching semantics. It only states the basic action, not what happens when no match exists, how titles are compared, or whether the result is a single object. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that is immediately front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It gives no context about the 'fields' parameter, the matching algorithm, or edge-case behavior. Even though an output schema exists, the description alone doesn't provide enough information for an agent to know how to correctly invoke the tool in all situations.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description clarifies that 'query' is the query string to match, but the optional 'fields' parameter is unexplained—there is no hint about what fields can be requested, how they affect the response, or the default behavior. As a result, the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the single paper whose title best matches the given query string.' This distinguishes it from sibling search tools by emphasizing the single-result, title-specific nature.

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 implies a precise use case (finding the one best title match) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over search_papers, search_papers_bulk, or autocomplete_paper. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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