search_snippets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the source fields (full texts, abstracts, titles) and mentions optional filters, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any result ordering, pagination, or side effects. The verb 'search' implies read-only, which adds a bit of context, but this is minimal.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource. It is concise with no fluff or irrelevant details.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. It does not elaborate on the optional filters, any constraints, or how this tool fits into the broader search capability set. The lack of parameter details makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only names 'query' and refers to 'optional filters' without enumerating the six filter parameters (venue, paper_ids, etc.) or explaining their purpose. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action (search), the resource (text snippets from paper full texts, abstracts, and titles), and the query matching aspect. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers by focusing on snippets rather than papers themselves.

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 usage when searching for snippets within paper text, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over search_papers or other alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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