search_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the API source (CrossRef), the maximum limit (20), and return fields. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or ordering of results.

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 extremely concise, using a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' structure. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. Minor omission: no guidance on handling large result sets or network issues.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage (meaning the description doesn't repeat schema), the description adds value with examples for query and clarifies limit's default (8) and maximum (20), which are not in the schema. This compensates well.

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's function: 'Search 200M+ academic papers using CrossRef API.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (academic papers), and the sibling tools (ask_research_question, get_paper_details) are distinct, so there is no confusion.

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 example queries, which implicitly guide usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., for broad search vs. retrieving details). No 'when not to use' or alternative guidance is given.

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