search_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it performs semantic search ('Findet Textstellen auch dann, wenn andere Begriffe verwendet werden'), returns snippets with title, year, and page number, and searches the local library. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, two sentences on behavior, and a clear list of arguments with examples and constraints. No superfluous text.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and cross-references list_projects. It is complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter in detail (e.g., query as natural language question, limit 1-20, projekt optional scoping to project, bereich optional with valid values from list_projects). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool searches the local paper library by content for a topic ('Durchsucht die lokale Paper-Bibliothek inhaltlich nach einem Thema'). It further explains the semantic search capability and return format, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a specific use case ('um herauszufinden, was in den gelesenen Papern zu einem Thema steht') and implies it is for content-based queries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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