search_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (search with filters) and what it returns (metadata, abstracts, links), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with 17 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded and efficient: two sentences that cover purpose, capabilities, and return values without waste. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct information (search scope and output).

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's complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, limits) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe return format more thoroughly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning Boolean operators and filters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search IEEE Xplore for papers'), resource ('papers'), and scope ('full-text search with Boolean operators and multiple filters'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_by_author' or 'search_by_publication' by emphasizing comprehensive search capabilities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_author' or 'search_by_publication' is provided. The description mentions filters but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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