search_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: results are only relevant passages, not proof of entailment, and source metadata may be missing so it must not be invented. 'Search' also implies a non-mutating read operation, though this is not spelled out.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and scope, the second delivers the critical verification warning. The structure is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 description covers the main safety-critical behavior and the output schema presumably documents return values. It is still incomplete around sibling differentiation and parameter semantics, leaving an agent to guess about document_filter and when to use get_reference instead.

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 adds nothing about query, top_k, or document_filter. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but document_filter in particular has ambiguous accepted values and no compensating detail is provided.

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 names a clear verb and resource: 'Search local indexed academic passages.' It is specific about scope, but it never references the sibling tool get_reference, so the agent must rely on the name contrast rather than an explicit statement of what this tool is not.

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 passage 'Inspect the exact text before citing it' implies the tool returns candidates that require verification, which is useful. However, the description does not state when to prefer search_references over get_reference or when not to use it.

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