paper_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the exact return fields, the DOI-based merge/dedup behavior, the $0.01 USDC cost, and a p99 latency of 6000ms. It omits auth/payment mechanics and any rate-limit or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with what it is and what it returns before parameters, cost and latency. It is a bit long, but nearly every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return shape, and it adds cost and latency context for a 5-parameter tool. Combined with the parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though explicit alternative-routing guidance is absent.

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 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents query as required, enumerates the source values with the 'all' default, states the limit range (1-25) and default (10), and notes year_from and open_access_only defaults. Only minor format detail (e.g. year_from semantics) is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (scientific papers) and names the three upstream corpora it federates (OpenAlex, arXiv, PubMed). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic siblings like web_search, news_search and dev_search by scoping to scientific literature.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type and the 'in one call' federation framing, so an agent can infer this is for academic literature queries. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against nearby siblings such as web_search or citation_check.

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