search_papers_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the 1000-paper limit, lack of relevance ranking, and continuation-token pagination. These are valuable beyond the tool's name. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a read-only search tool, this is adequate.

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. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Bulk paper search') and efficiently packs key details (limit, ranking, pagination) without wasted words.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers the tool's unique behavior (bulk, no ranking, pagination) but leaves parameter semantics mostly unaddressed and does not clarify how it relates to search_papers. Given the complexity, this is adequate but with notable gaps.

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. It only explains the 'token' parameter's purpose (continuation for paging). The other seven parameters (query, year, venue, fields, fields_of_study, publication_types, sort) receive no semantic explanation. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of guidance on formats or allowed values leaves a significant gap.

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 the tool's function: 'Bulk paper search' with specific capabilities (up to 1000 papers, no relevance ranking, continuation token). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers (which likely returns ranked, smaller sets) and get_papers_batch (which retrieves by IDs). The verb 'search' and resource 'papers' are explicit.

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 clear context: use when you need bulk results without ranking and with pagination. It implies a use case for large-scale retrieval but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, fitting a 4.

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