Search Papers

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

The description merely restates the tool's name with the platform context 'ModelScope' and does not disclose behavioral details. Since annotations only include the title and lack readOnlyHint or other cues, the description fails to elaborate on outcome, pagination, or result structure, though the presence of an output schema partially offsets this.

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 sentence and highly concise, but it offers minimal information beyond the title. It is not bloated, but it could be more informative; for a simple search tool, it is adequate but on the terse side.

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 is straightforward, and with a complete input schema plus an output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not clarify how searching papers differs from searching models/datasets or what types of papers are included, leaving some gaps in context.

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?

All three parameters (query, sort, limit) are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters and the description adds no extra semantics.

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 uses the verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'papers on ModelScope', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_models and search_datasets. However, it lacks specifics about scope or search behavior, so it is clear but not highly detailed.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The resource type 'papers' implies a search for papers, but there is no mention of exclusions or references to sibling search tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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