search_papers

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

The description carries the full burden since no annotations are provided. It discloses the relevance-ranking behavior, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what fields are searched (title, abstract, full text), or any rate limits or pagination behavior. This lack of behavioral detail makes it insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence of 23 words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Relevance-ranked search') and efficiently lists the filters without superfluous wording. Every phrase contributes to the overall understanding.

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?

With 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is relatively sparse. It covers the main purpose and enumerates key filters, but it does not explain pagination defaults, the meaning of 'fields' vs 'fields_of_study', or any nuances of relevance ranking. The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description alone is only minimally complete for a complex tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing the filter categories (year, venue, field of study, publication type, citation count, open access), which map to several parameters. However, it omits query, limit, offset, and the 'fields' parameter, leaving some parameters unexplained. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 that the tool performs a relevance-ranked search for papers with optional filters on year, venue, field of study, publication type, citation count, and open access. This provides a specific verb (search) and resource (papers), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like search_papers_bulk, which also searches papers, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this for single queries' or 'use search_papers_bulk for batch queries'. The description only states what the tool does, without any context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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