search_literature

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those: tags are 'heuristic mentions, not verified observations,' unknown sources raise an error, and 'No synthesis is generated.' These disclose important limitations and failure modes that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical caveats about tags, errors, and filter semantics, with no filler or repetition of schema names.

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?

With ten parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers only the most essential behavioral rules. It explains return contents, OR/AND filtering, and unknown-source errors, but it leaves gaps around valid values for domain-specific fields like collection, instruments, wavelengths, and source_class. This is workable but not fully complete for an agent expected to formulate precise searches.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful parameter semantics by explaining 'Filter lists use OR within each list and AND between fields,' which applies to array parameters like topics and instruments, and it mentions that unknown sources raise an error. However, most parameters (source, collection, source_class, year_min, year_max, top_k) receive no individual explanation or accepted-value guidance.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search local literature.' It further specifies what is returned ('extracted passages, citations and explicit retrieval mode'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools get_paper and get_source by making clear this is a search-and-extract operation rather than a single-item retrieval operation.

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 use case is implied by 'Search local literature' and the statement 'No synthesis is generated' acts as a mild when-not. However, the description never explicitly routes the agent toward or away from the sibling tools get_paper and get_source, nor does it state when search is preferred over direct paper retrieval.

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