search_by_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it maps year_start/year_end to a year-range string and mentions defaults and a cap for the limit parameter. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clarifying line about the wrapper, and then a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers parameters thoroughly and references search_papers for filter details. It lacks an explanation of the return format, but for a search tool this is acceptable. The description is nearly complete for its purpose.

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 compensates well. It explains every parameter: topic as the search query, year_start/year_end as inclusive range, limit with default and cap, fields_of_study as a list of fields, and min_citation_count as a threshold. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches papers by topic with optional year range and filters. It explicitly distinguishes itself as a thin wrapper over search_papers, specifying the mapping of year_start/year_end to the API's year-range string. The verb 'search' and resource 'papers' are clearly identified.

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 clear context: it is a thin wrapper over search_papers and directs users to search_papers for filter semantics. This implies when to use this tool (when searching by topic with year range) versus search_papers (when needing more complex filters). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative sibling tools.

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