discover_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by stating that the seed is excluded and that similarity is a graph metric, not a quality assessment, which provides behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.

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 with no redundant phrasing. Key information (ranking function, criteria, seed exclusion) is front-loaded, and the caveat about similarity is concise. 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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose, ranking options, and an important caveat. It omits details about the limit parameter and return format, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 only 33% (only the id parameter is described). The description explains the ranking enum (similarity, influence, recent) but does not mention the limit parameter or its constraints. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but leaves the limit parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ranks papers in an Inciteful graph around a seed paper, specifying ranking criteria (similarity, PageRank influence, publication year) and explicitly notes the seed is excluded. It also clarifies that similarity is a graph metric, not a quality assessment, which distinguishes its purpose from generic search or retrieval tools.

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 implies a use case (ranking papers around a seed) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like similar_papers or search_papers. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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