search_topics_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does so by stating that the tool returns topic names, parent fields, domains, and publication volume, which implies a read-only operation. The verbs 'Browse and discover' suggest nondestructive behavior. The description adds sufficient behavioral context for a search tool.

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: three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, return values, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it lacks parameter explanations and more detailed usage context, such as when to prefer this over sibling search tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details, but the overall guidance could be more comprehensive.

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% parameter description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'query' or 'limit'. While the parameter names are somewhat intuitive, the description offers no additional meaning, such as expected query format or limit range. This forces the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for optimal use.

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 purpose: browsing and discovering research topics/concepts for a given keyword. It uses specific verbs like 'Browse and discover' and identifies the resource as 'research topics/concepts', distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on authors or papers. The mention of returned fields (topic names, parent fields, domains, publication volume) further clarifies its function.

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 explicit use cases: 'mapping a research landscape, finding subfields, or identifying trending areas.' This guides the agent on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like search_papers_tool. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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