apaper_search_dblp_papers

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists parameters and defaults but does not describe the output format (e.g., fields returned, sorting, pagination), nor does it mention any side effects or constraints like rate limits. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description could provide more behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear intro and parameter list. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's usage.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers all parameters, including defaults and parameter-specific behavior. It is complete enough for a search tool, though it lacks information on result ordering or limitations.

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 is crucial. It adds meaningful details: query supports boolean operators, venue filter is case-insensitive substring, and defaults for max_results and include_bibtex are explained. However, it could be more specific about allowed values or formats for year_from/year_to.

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 DBLP computer science bibliography, which is a specific and distinct resource. The verb 'search' and resource 'DBLP' are precise, and the sibling tools for other databases (Google Scholar, IACR) naturally differentiate it.

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 usage for DBLP searches but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Users must infer from the name and context.

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