search_research_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds context that the papers are 'real' and 'underpinning the research,' and lists searchable fields. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like result ordering, handling of empty results, or read-only nature beyond what a search implies. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second gives usage direction. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and full schema coverage, the description provides robust context. It lacks an explicit return structure since no output schema exists, but the mentioned fields make results inferable. Nearly complete for a search tool.

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 covers both parameters (100%). The description adds value by specifying searchable fields 'title, authors, abstract, DOI,' which extends beyond the schema's claim of 'title and abstract.' This clarifies query scope and enriches parameter understanding.

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 'Search 1,600+ real academic papers' with specific fields (title, authors, abstract, DOI), making the action and resource explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_faq and search_pain_points, which target different content types.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when a claim needs a citable primary source.' This clearly indicates when to select this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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