search_literature

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the search scope but fails to disclose prerequisites (e.g., login for CNKI/WoS), rate limits, or error handling. The 19 parameters remain unexplained, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentence, but it lacks structure and omits critical information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness needed for a complex tool.

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 19 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, prerequisites, or output details, leaving an agent underinformed for tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. Despite 19 parameters (many with defaults), the description only mentions 'query' and 'sources', adding negligible value over the raw schema.

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 literature across open DeepXiv sources with optional CNKI/WoS integration. It effectively distinguishes itself from source-specific siblings like search_cnki, search_wos, and search_deepxiv.

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 this tool is for cross-source searches, contrasting with sibling tools for single sources. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, such as noting that CNKI/WoS require prior login via siblings.

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