workspace_list_external_reference_searches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists search runs and candidates, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns both runs and candidates together, how results are ordered, or any side effects. The lack of annotation coverage makes this a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so the brevity is not fully a strength.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the returned list contains, how the parameters affect the result, or how this tool relates to the many sibling list/search tools. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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 must compensate for the two parameters (paper_id and blocked_id). It does not explain what these parameters mean, how they filter the list, or whether they are mutually exclusive. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 'List scholarly reference search runs and candidates' uses a clear verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('scholarly reference search runs and candidates'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like workspace_list_external_reference_resolutions or workspace_search_external_reference, so an agent may struggle to know which list tool to choose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_list_external_reference_resolutions or workspace_search_external_reference. The description implies a listing operation but does not state the context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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