must_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether results are paged, sorted, cached, personalized, or what 'high-score' is measured against. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a critical 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?

It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single fragment sentence that omits the verb entirely. Nothing is front-loaded because there is effectively no content to prioritize.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a one-parameter catalog tool with no annotations the description should at minimum state it returns a curated/ranked list of papers and explain the `limit` behavior. It does neither.

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 coverage is 0%: the single `limit` parameter has a default of 50 but no description. The description never mentions `limit`, its units, or its maximum, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 is a noun phrase fragment ('High-score or must_read-labeled papers.') with no verb or resource statement, so it never says what the tool actually does (list/return papers). It largely restates the tool name 'must_read', with 'high-score' as the only added nuance.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (similar_to, new_since, search_local, get_paper) that also surface papers. The agent must guess whether this is a listing, search, or filter tool.

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