search_research_papers

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 transparency. It discloses the cost model (free search, paid records), that no key is required, and the exact return fields (title, authors, venue, year, DOI, provenance URL, record_id). However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or result count limits, which are typical search tool behaviors. Overall, it is quite transparent but not exhaustive.

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 efficiently organized: cost info first, then scope, then returns, then workflow guidance, then use cases, and finally the args section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information. It is reasonably concise given the amount of helpful context packed in.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, scope, return format, cost model, and how it connects with get_record. Since there is no output schema, the description's listing of return fields is essential and well done. However, missing details like result limits, pagination, or sorting leave minor gaps for a search tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that query is 'keyword(s) to search' and giving a concrete example ('CRISPR off-target'). This makes the parameter's meaning and usage clear, exceeding what the schema alone offers.

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: search scholarly works across multiple databases. It specifies the verb (search), the resource (1.2M+ scholarly works), and the scope (specific sources). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the companion get_record tool for buying full records, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: 'Free to search, so probe coverage before you spend; call get_record with a record_id to buy the full record.' It also lists relevant use cases (literature review, citation checking, research agent workflows). This provides clear guidance relative to get_record and other potential search tools in the sibling set.

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