search_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the pagination behavior via next_cursor and indicating that the tool returns metadata. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not address limits, ordering, or API-specific quirks.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination and follow-up usage details are packed efficiently.

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 read-only search tool, the description is minimally adequate, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the returned metadata fields, how pagination actually works, or how to combine filters with the query. It also does not differentiate from sibling discovery tools.

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 25%, with only the filter parameter having a description in the schema. The description adds partial meaning by mentioning next_cursor for pagination, which hints at the cursor parameter, but it does not compensate for the lack of documentation on limit, query semantics, or cursor usage syntax.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search OpenAlex for papers by topic or title'), which clearly identifies the tool's core purpose. It also distinguishes itself from downstream tools like get_paper and similar_papers by mentioning their role in using selected IDs, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search/discovery tools such as discover_papers.

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 when to use the tool: when searching by topic or title, and it provides a follow-up workflow ('Use selected IDs with get_paper or similar_papers'). However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like discover_papers or literature_review, and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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