inspire_search

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by listing returned fields (titles, authors, arXiv IDs, etc.) and mentioning query syntax. However, it omits details like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or pagination behavior.

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 concise with two paragraphs and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be more organized with bullet points for the returned fields.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately lists returned fields. However, it does not mention that results are returned as a list, how pagination works, or error scenarios. The default sort order and size are not explained.

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 includes query examples but does not explain the 'size' and 'sort' parameters. This leaves significant ambiguity about their meaning and allowed values.

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 searches the INSPIRE-HEP literature database for high-energy physics papers, with specific examples of query syntax. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arxiv_fetch and hepdata_get by focusing on the INSPIRE database.

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 examples of queries but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for literature search but lacks direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

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