firecrawl_research_search_papers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantive behavioral context: semantic search over indexed metadata and abstracts, ranked results, and recall improvement strategy. No contradictions; full disclosure of search methodology.

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?

Three sentences: purpose and scope, search method and output, usage advice. Front-loaded with essential information. No superfluous text; every sentence 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description explains search method, output format, parameter semantics, and usage strategy. It covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. Absence of pagination details is acceptable for a ranked list.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the query should be a natural-language topic/question and advising diverse framings. It also provides the default value for k (40), clarifies case-insensitive substring matching for authors, and gives an example for categories. Meaningful additions beyond 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 it is the 'Primary entry point for finding research papers by topic' across multiple scientific domains. It specifies the search method (semantic HyDE), output fields (paper id, title, authors, abstract), and distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the primary search tool among the firecrawl_research_* family.

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 advises running 'SEVERAL distinct framings of the question' for better recall, providing actionable guidance. It implies use before other research tools but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like firecrawl_research_inspect_paper or firecrawl_search. Adequate context for usage.

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