paper_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions features like 'multi-dimensional relevance scoring' and 'semantic search,' it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns, how results are presented, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is feature-focused rather than behaviorally transparent.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality and target audience without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with the primary action ('search academic papers') rather than starting with the system type.

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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (paper metadata, full text, links), how results are structured, or provide behavioral context needed for effective use. The feature list doesn't compensate for these significant gaps in operational understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 10 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'multi-dimensional relevance scoring' and 'semantic search' relates to overall functionality rather than parameter semantics.

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's purpose as an 'intelligent academic paper search system' with specific features like multi-dimensional relevance scoring, academic quality assessment, and semantic search. It identifies the target users as 'researchers and professors' and mentions advanced functionality, but doesn't differentiate from siblings since none exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where it's most appropriate. It only mentions the target audience without operational context. With no sibling tools, this is less critical but still a gap in usage guidance.

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