search_h2_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Every result item embeds safety_notes inline,' which is useful behavioral context. But it does not mention pagination, sorting, error conditions, or any other operational behaviors, leaving moderate transparency for a search tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by key behavioral instructions. Every sentence provides actionable information with no redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It mentions safety_notes but does not describe the result structure, pagination, how to combine filters, or search syntax. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively for complex queries without more context.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information, and schema description coverage is only 27%, so most of the 11 parameters are undocumented. The tool description does not compensate for this gap, leaving agents to rely on parameter names and enum values. For a tool with this many filters, richer guidance is needed.

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 the molecular-hydrogen medical-literature corpus, using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly defines its intended scope: 'Use this for any hydrogen-related medical question,' which distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_paper or get_safety_notes.

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 explicit usage context with 'Use this for any hydrogen-related medical question.' It also gives behavioral guidance for handling results ('cite both the paper and its safety guidance'). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, which prevents a 5.

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