search_saved_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Search through papers') without clarifying whether it is read-only, what kinds of queries are supported, pagination behavior, or any result constraints. The lack of detail leaves the agent to assume typical search semantics, which is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and to the point, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. The structure is appropriate for a simple tool but lacks the informative detail that would warrant a higher score.

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?

The tool has an output schema, but the description fails to convey essential context such as the distinction from sibling tools like 'list_saved_papers' or 'search_papers', the scope of the search, or potential limitations. For a search tool with one parameter and an output schema, more clarity on what is searched and how it differs from alternatives is expected.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional meaning about the 'query' parameter beyond the verb 'Search'. It does not specify whether it accepts full-text keywords, metadata filters, or any query syntax, leaving the agent to guess the expected input format.

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 clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('papers saved in the local research library'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_papers', which likely searches a broader set, but the phrase 'saved in the local research library' adequately scopes 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers' or 'list_saved_papers'. The description implies a use case but does not state explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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