Paper Search MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation2/5
The tools are highly ambiguous due to extensive overlap across sources; for example, download_arxiv and download_semantic both download PDFs, and search_arxiv and search_semantic both search papers, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool without deep knowledge of each source. The descriptions clarify the source but not the functional distinction, leading to potential misselection when the agent doesn't care about the specific source.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a perfectly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with all tools using snake_case and clear prefixes like download_, read_, search_, and get_. This predictability makes it easy for an agent to understand the action and target, such as download_arxiv_paper or search_crossref.
Tool Count1/5
With 57 tools, the count is extremely high for a paper search server, far exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. This creates a bloated and overwhelming interface that is difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently, as many tools are redundant across sources rather than adding unique functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set is highly complete for the domain of paper search and retrieval, covering download, read, search, and metadata retrieval across numerous academic sources. There are no obvious gaps; the tools provide full lifecycle coverage from discovery to content extraction, including a unified search tool for convenience.
Average 3.5/5 across 57 of 57 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 7 of 17 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 795 times in the last 30 days.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 'direct paper reading is not supported' in the returns, which is a critical behavioral trait, but fails to explain what the tool actually does (e.g., does it fetch metadata, return an error, or provide alternative content?). This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's real behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by args and returns in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, such as the critical note in returns, though it could be more concise by integrating the 'unused' detail into the args section more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool that claims to read but doesn't support it), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It hints at limitations in returns but doesn't fully explain the tool's functionality, error handling, or what it actually returns (e.g., a string message). With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, but the overall context is lacking for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics: 'paper_id' is explained as 'PubMed ID (PMID)' and 'save_path' as 'Directory where the PDF would be saved (unused),' but this is insufficient for 2 parameters. The 'unused' note is helpful but doesn't clarify why the parameter exists or its implications, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Read and extract text content from a PubMed paper,' which is clear but vague about what 'read and extract' entails. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'download_pubmed' or 'read_arxiv_paper' in terms of functionality or scope, leaving ambiguity about its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for downloading or reading papers from various sources, the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, such as when to choose this over 'download_pubmed' or other read tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool's key behavioral trait: it returns a message indicating 'direct paper reading is not supported natively,' which is crucial context. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., downloads a PDF, attempts extraction, or just returns an error), permissions needed, rate limits, or side effects like saving files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the return statement could be more concise. No wasted sentences, but the return message is somewhat verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involves reading/extraction with a non-native limitation), no annotations, and an output schema that only specifies a string return, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool actually does operationally, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools, making it hard for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning for both parameters: 'paper_id' as an OpenAlex ID and 'save_path' as a directory for PDF saving with a default. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID structure, path requirements) or interactions, leaving gaps despite the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the purpose ('read and extract text content from an OpenAlex paper'), which is clear but vague about what 'read and extract' entails. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'OpenAlex' source, but doesn't clarify how it differs from other 'read_*_paper' tools beyond the data source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_openalex' or other 'read_*_paper' tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a path or error message, which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, network dependencies, file overwriting behavior, or error conditions. For a download operation, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be integrated more smoothly. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (download operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage context. The output schema helps by specifying the return type, but more guidance is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some value by explaining 'paper_id' as a 'CiteSeerX paper identifier' and 'save_path' with its default, but it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., paper_id structure, path validity) or constraints. This partially compensates but falls short of fully documenting the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download PDF for a paper from CiteSeerX.' It specifies the verb ('Download'), resource ('PDF for a paper'), and source ('from CiteSeerX'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_arxiv' or 'read_citeseerx_paper', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'download_arxiv', 'read_citeseerx_paper', and 'search_citeseerx', there's no indication of when this specific download tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool 'read and extract text content' and saves a PDF to a directory, implying file system interaction. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it downloads the paper if not already present, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'extract' entails (e.g., OCR, plain text). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be more integrated (e.g., merging the initial sentence with the sections). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool that reads and extracts text, potentially involving downloads), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or integration with siblings. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on the tool's role in the ecosystem would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'paper_id' as a 'BASE paper identifier' and 'save_path' as a 'Directory where the PDF is/will be saved', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., what a BASE paper identifier looks like) or the implications of the save_path default, leaving some ambiguity. With 0% coverage, this partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read and extract text content from a BASE paper.' It specifies the verb ('read and extract'), resource ('BASE paper'), and output ('text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' or 'download_base' beyond mentioning 'BASE paper' in the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'download_base', 'search_base', and other 'read_*_paper' tools, the description lacks context on prerequisites, distinctions, or exclusions. It only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions downloading and saving PDFs ('where the PDF is/will be saved'), implying network and file system operations, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it overwrites existing files. For a tool with potential side effects, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It uses minimal sentences efficiently, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more smoothly. There's little waste, but minor improvements in flow could enhance clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., errors, side effects) and sibling differentiation. For a tool with potential downloads and file writes, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'paper_id' as a 'bioRxiv DOI' and 'save_path' as a 'Directory where the PDF is/will be saved', which clarifies beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't cover format details (e.g., DOI structure, path requirements), leaving gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read and extract text content from a bioRxiv paper PDF.' It specifies the verb ('read and extract'), resource ('bioRxiv paper PDF'), and output ('text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' or 'download_biorxiv' beyond the bioRxiv focus, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different sources (e.g., 'read_arxiv_paper', 'download_biorxiv'), there's no indication of whether this tool downloads, reads, or both, or how it compares to other bioRxiv-related tools. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description focus.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions extraction behavior and fallback to abstract/error, but lacks critical details: whether it downloads files, requires internet access, handles rate limits, or has authentication needs. For a tool with potential network/file operations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the first sentence could be more front-loaded with key details, and some redundancy exists between 'Read and extract' in the description and 'Extracted text' in Returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema present (returns str), the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, for a tool that likely involves network calls and file operations, it lacks sufficient behavioral context, error handling details, and differentiation from siblings, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides basic semantics for both parameters: 'paper_id' as an identifier and 'save_path' as a directory for PDF saving. However, it doesn't explain paper_id format, save_path validation, or the relationship between downloading and extracting. With 0% schema coverage, this adds some value but doesn't fully compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read and extract text content') and resource ('from a CiteSeerX paper'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_citeseerx' or 'read_arxiv_paper' beyond specifying the CiteSeerX source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different sources (e.g., 'read_arxiv_paper', 'download_citeseerx'), the description lacks context about when CiteSeerX is appropriate or how this differs from download-only tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions extraction and saving to a directory, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it downloads the paper first, what format the extracted text is in, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it modifies existing files. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section could be integrated more smoothly, and the description could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (returns str), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one with 0% schema coverage), and behavioral complexity (involving both reading and potentially downloading), the description should provide more context about how the tool works, error conditions, and typical use cases to be truly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'paper_id: HAL paper identifier' and 'save_path: Directory where the PDF is/will be saved (default: './downloads').' This clarifies what each parameter represents, but doesn't provide format details (e.g., HAL ID format, path requirements) or explain the relationship between downloading and reading. Given the coverage gap, this is minimally adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read and extract text content from a HAL paper.' It specifies the verb ('read and extract'), resource ('HAL paper'), and outcome ('text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' or 'download_hal', which have similar naming patterns but potentially different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'download_hal', 'search_hal', other 'read_*' tools), there's no indication of when this specific HAL paper reading tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Attempt to read and extract,' hinting at potential failure, and notes a default save path, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like error conditions, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if the paper isn't accessible. For a tool that downloads and processes files, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by integrating usage context, but it's efficiently presented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving download and text extraction), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters briefly, and an output schema exists (returns a string), so return values don't need explanation. However, it misses behavioral details like error handling or performance constraints, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics: it explains 'paper_id' as an 'OpenAIRE paper identifier' and 'save_path' as a 'Directory where the PDF is/will be saved' with a default. However, it doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., ID structure, path validity) or usage nuances, leaving parameters partially documented but insufficient for full understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attempt to read and extract text content from an OpenAIRE paper.' It specifies the verb ('read and extract'), resource ('OpenAIRE paper'), and outcome ('text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' or 'download_openaire', which handle similar operations for different sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'download_openaire' and other 'read_*_paper' tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, when this tool is preferred, or what distinguishes it from similar tools. The only implied usage is for OpenAIRE papers, but no further context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions downloading and saving a PDF ('where the PDF is/will be saved'), implying file system operations, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, network dependencies, permissions needed for save_path, or whether it performs OCR/extraction from PDFs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly verbose compared to integrating details into prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists (returns 'str'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters basically, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., extraction method, errors) and doesn't fully address the complexity of a tool that downloads and processes PDFs. The output schema reduces need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'paper_id: Zenodo paper identifier' and 'save_path: Directory where the PDF is/will be saved (default: './downloads').' This clarifies purpose and default, but doesn't detail format (e.g., Zenodo ID structure) or constraints (e.g., path validity). It partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read and extract text content from a Zenodo paper.' It specifies the verb ('read and extract'), resource ('Zenodo paper'), and output ('text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_zenodo' or 'read_arxiv_paper' beyond the Zenodo source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different sources (e.g., 'read_arxiv_paper', 'download_zenodo'), there's no indication of when this specific Zenodo reading tool is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the download action and return value, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like: whether authentication is required, rate limits, error handling (what happens if paper isn't found), file naming conventions, or whether it overwrites existing files. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Arg/Return sections. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence states the core functionality, and the subsequent lines provide essential parameter and return value information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, download operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description covers the basics adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations and many similar siblings, it should provide more contextual guidance about when to use it versus alternatives and more behavioral details about the download process.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially succeeds. It explains that 'paper_id' is a 'BASE paper identifier' and 'save_path' is a 'Directory to save the PDF', which adds useful semantic context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., what a BASE identifier looks like, path validation rules) or provide examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Download PDF') and resource ('for a paper from BASE'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling download tools (like download_arxiv, download_biorxiv, etc.), which all appear to perform similar PDF downloading operations from different sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this specific tool versus the many alternative download tools in the sibling list. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with similar tools like 'download_with_fallback' or the various 'read_*_paper' tools that might serve overlapping purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading a PDF and returning a path, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the paper_id is invalid. For a download operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and efficient: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the main description, but overall it's concise and organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (download operation), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str: Path to downloaded PDF'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., network effects, errors). The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage and limitations would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'paper_id: DOAJ paper identifier' clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's 'Paper Id', and 'save_path: Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads')' explains usage and default behavior. This effectively documents both parameters, though it could elaborate on format constraints (e.g., paper_id structure).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download PDF for a paper from DOAJ.' It specifies the verb ('Download'), resource ('PDF for a paper'), and source ('from DOAJ'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_arxiv' or 'read_doaj_paper', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'download_arxiv', 'read_doaj_paper'), there's no indication of when DOAJ is the appropriate source or how this differs from other download or read tools. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions downloading a PDF and returning a path, but lacks details on error handling, network behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a download operation, this is insufficient to inform an agent about potential issues or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the Args/Returns formatting is slightly verbose for such a simple tool, but it remains efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a download tool with potential complexities like network errors or file system interactions, it lacks behavioral details that would help an agent use it correctly in varied contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'paper_id' as 'HAL paper identifier' and 'save_path' with its default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context on format or constraints for 'paper_id.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download PDF for a paper from HAL.' It specifies the verb ('Download'), resource ('PDF for a paper'), and source ('from HAL'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_arxiv' or 'read_hal_paper,' which reduces clarity in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'download_arxiv' and 'read_hal_paper,' there is no indication of when this specific download tool is appropriate, such as for HAL papers only or in comparison to read tools. This lack of context leaves usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the action ('Download PDF') and return value ('Path to the downloaded PDF file'), but lacks critical details such as network behavior (e.g., rate limits, errors), file handling (e.g., overwrites, permissions), or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more seamlessly, but overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, and the output schema likely details the return value, reducing the need for that in the description. However, it misses behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, side effects) and usage context relative to siblings, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'paper_id' as 'medRxiv DOI' and 'save_path' with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying the expected format for 'paper_id' and the purpose of 'save_path'. However, it doesn't detail constraints (e.g., DOI format, path validity), preventing a score of 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download PDF of a medRxiv paper.' It specifies the verb ('Download') and resource ('PDF of a medRxiv paper'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_biorxiv' or 'read_medrxiv_paper', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'download_biorxiv', 'read_medrxiv_paper', 'search_medrxiv'), it fails to specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what specific metadata fields are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter details. No wasted words, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative given the output schema exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral context (no annotations). The output schema exists, so describing return values isn't needed, but guidance on when to use this versus other search tools would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: query ('Search query string') with an example, and max_results with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from arXiv, specifying the resource (arXiv papers) and action (search). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning arXiv specifically, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other search_* tools in the same server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other search_* tools (search_base, search_crossref, etc.) or read_arxiv_paper. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'List of paper metadata in dictionary format,' which gives some output context, but lacks critical behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' could be slightly more integrated into natural language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage differentiation from siblings. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'query' as a search string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances (e.g., query syntax limitations).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 academic papers from BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine).' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling search tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_crossref). The description mentions BASE specifically, but doesn't explain when BASE is preferable over other academic search engines, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a search operation and mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format'), but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific metadata fields are included. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses clear sections (Args, Returns) to detail parameters and output. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. Minor improvement could make it a 5, such as integrating the sections more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like search scope or limitations. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'query' is explained as a 'Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning')' and 'max_results' as 'Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10).' This clarifies purpose and default behavior beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover constraints like query syntax or max_results limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 academic papers from CiteSeerX digital library.' This specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'), and identifies the source ('CiteSeerX digital library'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (like search_arxiv, search_pubmed, etc.), which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools available (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed), there's no indication of when CiteSeerX is preferable, what types of papers it covers, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the tool name and source mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific metadata fields are included. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then lists args and returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels could be more integrated. It's efficient without being overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics but lacks depth: no behavioral transparency, no usage guidelines vs. siblings, and while it explains parameters, it doesn't fully address the tool's operational context. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'query' is explained as 'Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning')' and 'max_results' as 'Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover advanced query syntax or result limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 academic papers from dblp computer science bibliography.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('academic papers'), and identifies the source ('dblp computer science bibliography'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' or 'search_crossref' beyond mentioning the dblp source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'search_arxiv', 'search_crossref', 'search_papers'), there's no indication of what makes dblp unique or when it should be preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool searches and returns paper metadata, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the first sentence could be more front-loaded with key details, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'in dictionary format' might be implied by output schema). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a search tool with many siblings, it should include more about when to use it, result format details, or limitations. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but overall completeness is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'query' is a search query string with an example, and 'max_results' has a default of 10. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail query syntax or result limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from Europe PMC, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers from Europe PMC'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_pmc or search_pubmed that might target similar databases, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_pmc or search_pubmed from the sibling list. It mentions the database (Europe PMC) but doesn't explain its scope, strengths, or limitations compared to other search tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior, or what 'detailed information' entails when fetch_details is True. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose statement. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about the metadata structure. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (true), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and a search function that likely has behavioral nuances (rate limits, authentication, result ordering), the description should provide more operational context. The parameter explanations are good, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains what 'query' should contain with examples, clarifies 'max_results' default and purpose, and explains what 'fetch_details' controls. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from the IACR ePrint Archive, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the IACR source, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_arxiv or search_crossref beyond the source name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many other search tools in the sibling list. The description doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or specific use cases for IACR papers versus other sources. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'paper metadata in dictionary format' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, pagination, or what specific metadata fields are included. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value: the first establishes purpose, the next two explain parameters, and the last describes the return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (rate limits, error handling) and differentiation from sibling tools. For a search tool among many alternatives, more guidance would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains both parameters: 'query' as a search string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on query syntax or result limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from the OpenAIRE infrastructure, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' or 'search_pubmed' beyond mentioning the specific source (OpenAIRE).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_crossref). The description mentions the source (OpenAIRE European Open Access infrastructure) but doesn't explain what makes this source unique or when it should be preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') which is helpful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed given the lack of output schema visibility in this context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description adequately covers parameter semantics. However, as a search tool with many alternatives and no annotations, it lacks context about OpenAlex's scope, limitations, or comparison to other search tools. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage this to provide richer context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'query' as a search string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover parameter constraints or advanced query syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from OpenAlex with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('academic papers from OpenAlex'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the OpenAlex source, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search_* tools in the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (search_arxiv, search_pubmed, etc.), the description provides no context about when OpenAlex is preferable, what it specializes in, or when other search tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Returns: str: Message indicating that direct PDF download is not supported.' This reveals that the tool may not actually download PDFs but instead returns a message about lack of support, which is crucial context not covered by annotations (none provided). However, it doesn't explain why direct download isn't supported, potential workarounds, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Arg/Return sections. There is no wasted text, but the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose with behavioral disclosure). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (attempting downloads with potential limitations), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return message about unsupported downloads, which is helpful, but doesn't cover error cases, permissions, or how it differs from other download tools. The output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), so describing return values isn't needed, but more behavioral context is warranted for a tool with such a significant caveat.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: 'paper_id: PubMed ID (PMID)' and 'save_path: Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads').' This clarifies what the parameters represent, but doesn't provide format details (e.g., PMID structure, path validation) or explain the save_path's relevance given the tool's limited functionality. The value added is minimal but addresses the bare essentials.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attempt to download PDF of a PubMed paper.' It specifies the verb ('download'), resource ('PDF of a PubMed paper'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_pubmed_paper' by focusing on PDF download rather than reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other download tools like 'download_scihub' or 'download_with_fallback' in terms of when to choose this specific PubMed download method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'download_scihub', 'download_with_fallback', 'read_pubmed_paper'), there is no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative advantages. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions downloading a PDF and returning a path, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if paper_id is invalid), file naming conventions, or network/timeout behavior. For a download operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists arguments and returns in a formatted way. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists (returns str path), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately but misses behavioral context like error conditions or prerequisites. The output schema handles return values, so that's not needed in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'paper_id' as the Zenodo identifier and 'save_path' as the directory with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., paper_id structure).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download PDF for a paper from Zenodo.' This specifies the verb (download), resource (PDF for a paper), and source (Zenodo). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read_zenodo_paper' or other download tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'download_arxiv', 'download_biorxiv', and 'read_zenodo_paper', there's no indication of when Zenodo is the appropriate source or when downloading vs. reading is preferred. Only basic parameter defaults are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool reads and extracts text, implying it downloads or accesses a PDF, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like network usage, error handling, file system operations (saving to 'save_path'), or performance characteristics. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place by defining the tool, parameters, and output. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the default into the purpose, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values further. However, it lacks details on prerequisites or error conditions, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: 'paper_id' is explained as 'IACR paper ID' with an example, and 'save_path' specifies the directory purpose and default value. This provides clear semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read and extract text content from an IACR ePrint paper PDF.' It specifies the verb ('read and extract'), resource ('IACR ePrint paper PDF'), and output ('text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_iacr' or 'read_arxiv_paper' beyond the IACR focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different sources (e.g., 'read_arxiv_paper', 'download_iacr'), it doesn't explain if this tool downloads first or requires a pre-downloaded PDF, or when to choose it over other IACR-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of paper metadata, but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or what specific metadata fields are included. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with labeled sections enhances readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and sibling differentiation that would make it more complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'query' as a search string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify query syntax or result limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from CORE with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('academic papers from CORE'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_base, which appear to perform similar searches on different databases, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_base, search_pubmed). It mentions the database (CORE) but doesn't explain what makes CORE unique or when it's the preferred source over alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format'), which adds some value, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, result ordering, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'query' as a search string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover constraints like query length or max_results range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from Google Scholar, which is a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers from Google Scholar'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' or 'search_pubmed' by specifying the Google Scholar source, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_crossref). The description lacks context about Google Scholar's coverage, strengths, or limitations compared to alternatives, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') which is helpful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, whether results are paginated, what fields are included in metadata, or any limitations of the PMC search. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal, purposeful sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes purpose, the next two explain parameters, and the last describes return format. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation). However, for a search tool with no annotations and many similar sibling tools, it lacks important context about when to use it, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from alternatives. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains both parameters: 'query' as a search query string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This provides meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on query syntax or result limitations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from PubMed Central (PMC), specifying both the action (search) and resource (academic papers from PMC). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_pubmed or search_europepmc, which likely search similar biomedical literature sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (search_pubmed, search_europepmc, search_papers, etc.), the description doesn't explain what makes PMC unique or when it's the appropriate choice compared to other biomedical literature search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a search operation and mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format'), but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what specific metadata fields are included. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns), uses minimal words to convey essential information, and has no redundant content. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining parameters, and describing the return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only 2 parameters with good description coverage, the description is reasonably complete for a basic search operation. However, with no annotations and many similar sibling tools, it lacks important context about when to use this specific tool and behavioral constraints that would help an agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'query' as a 'Search query string' with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify query syntax details or result limits beyond the default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 academic papers from PubMed.' This specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('academic papers from PubMed'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_pmc' or 'search_europepmc' that might also search PubMed-related databases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'search_pmc', 'search_europepmc', and 'download_pubmed', there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other PubMed-related search or download tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the return value format but doesn't disclose important traits like network dependencies, error conditions beyond 'error message', file system permissions needed for save_path, or whether the operation is idempotent/safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter and return documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is slightly more verbose than necessary for pure conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (file download operation), no annotations, and an output schema that only specifies return type as 'str', the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about error handling, network behavior, and file system implications that would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear semantic explanations for both parameters: paper_id is identified as an 'OpenAIRE paper identifier' and save_path specifies the directory purpose and default value. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download PDF'), target resource ('paper from OpenAIRE'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the source platform. It uses a precise verb+resource combination that differentiates it from other download_* tools for different repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other download_* tools or read_openaire_paper. The description mentions only what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., having a valid paper_id).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool downloads a PDF and saves it to a directory, and importantly notes that OpenAlex 'relies on extracted pdf_url instead of direct downloads' and typically returns error messages. This adds useful behavioral context about potential limitations and return values, though it could elaborate more on failure modes or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section could be slightly clearer. It's front-loaded with the main action, avoiding unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return behavior, and the output schema handles return value details. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus siblings, which is a gap given the extensive list of alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'paper_id' as the OpenAlex paper ID and 'save_path' as the directory to save the PDF with a default. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, covering both parameters adequately, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., what constitutes a valid paper_id).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Download PDF') and target resource ('for a paper from OpenAlex'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling download tools (like download_arxiv, download_biorxiv, etc.) beyond mentioning OpenAlex as the source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many alternative download tools in the sibling list. The description mentions OpenAlex as the source but doesn't explain when OpenAlex is appropriate compared to other sources like arXiv, PubMed, or SciHub, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool downloads PDFs via Sci-Hub with an optional fallback, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as potential legal/ethical considerations of using Sci-Hub, network reliability, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes 'failure' beyond the generic error message. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states the tool's function, and the subsequent lines efficiently document parameters and return values without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (downloads from Sci-Hub with fallback), lack of annotations, and schema coverage of 0%, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters and return values (with an output schema present), but misses important contextual details like behavioral risks, performance characteristics, or sibling tool differentiation. For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to cover behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'identifier' as DOI, title, PMID, or paper URL; 'save_path' as directory to save the PDF; and 'base_url' as Sci-Hub mirror URL. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details (e.g., DOI syntax) or constraints (e.g., valid URL patterns).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download paper PDF via Sci-Hub (optional fallback connector).' It specifies the action (download), resource (paper PDF), and mechanism (Sci-Hub with fallback). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_arxiv' or 'download_with_fallback' beyond mentioning Sci-Hub specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'Sci-Hub' and 'optional fallback connector,' suggesting it's for accessing papers potentially behind paywalls. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_arxiv' for arXiv papers or 'download_with_fallback' for general fallback scenarios. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool extracts text content and saves a PDF to a directory, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it downloads the paper first (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, error handling (e.g., if the paper_id is invalid), or permissions required. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the structured schema. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and parameters but misses behavioral aspects like error handling, dependencies (e.g., network access), or performance implications. For a tool that likely involves downloading and processing, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'paper_id' as a DOAJ paper identifier and 'save_path' as the directory for PDF saving with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details (e.g., paper_id structure or save_path validation).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read and extract text content') and resource ('from a DOAJ paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'download_doaj' (which likely downloads files) and 'search_doaj' (which searches metadata). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the paper must be accessible or if authentication is needed), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' or 'download_doaj' in terms of use cases. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool returns a list of paper metadata but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination details. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the purpose and parameters but misses behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'query' is a search query string with an example ('machine learning') and 'max_results' specifies the maximum number of papers with a default value. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on query syntax or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Search academic papers') and resource ('from DOAJ'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'download_doaj' or 'read_doaj_paper' by focusing on search functionality rather than download or reading operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description mentions DOAJ as the source, it doesn't clarify when to prefer DOAJ over other search tools like 'search_arxiv' or 'search_pubmed' in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what constitutes 'paper metadata' (fields, structure).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the 'Search academic papers from HAL open archive' line could be more front-loaded with additional context about when to use it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'query' is explained as a search string with an example, and 'max_results' specifies the default value and purpose. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Search academic papers'), identifies the resource ('from HAL open archive'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the HAL archive source. It provides a verb+resource combination that is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed). It doesn't mention HAL-specific advantages, limitations, or typical use cases compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosure. While it mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what specific metadata fields are included. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then uses clear sections (Args, Returns) to organize parameter and return information. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about what 'paper metadata' includes. The formatting with bullet-like sections is effective for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description does a good job. The parameter documentation is comprehensive, and the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address the tool's behavioral aspects and provide differentiation from sibling tools given the crowded namespace of search options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage (titles only), the description fully documents all three parameters: explaining what 'query' is with an example, detailing the flexible 'year' filter format with multiple examples, and specifying the 'max_results' default value. This completely compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 academic papers from Semantic Scholar.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'), and identifies the source ('Semantic Scholar'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed), which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools including many other search tools (search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_crossref, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific Semantic Scholar search over other search options. There's no mention of Semantic Scholar's unique coverage, strengths, or limitations compared to other sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') but lacks critical behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about what metadata fields are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'query' as a search query string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover advanced query syntax or result limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from the Zenodo open repository, specifying both the action ('search') and resource ('academic papers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'download_zenodo' and 'read_zenodo_paper' by focusing on search functionality rather than download or read operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed), there's no indication of when Zenodo-specific searching is appropriate or what differentiates it from other academic search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks behavioral details such as network requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid paper IDs), file overwriting behavior, or rate limits. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to disclose important operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. The formatting enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., network dependencies, errors). For a download tool with potential complexities, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'paper_id' is explained with an example format ('e.g., '2106.12345''), and 'save_path' specifies the default directory. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could note constraints like path validity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download PDF') and resource ('of an arXiv paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' (which likely reads content without downloading) and 'search_arxiv' (which searches rather than downloads). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_with_fallback' or 'download_scihub', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description assumes the user knows this is the correct tool for arXiv PDFs without contextual comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool downloads a PDF and returns a file path, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like network dependencies, error handling (what happens if paper_id is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it creates directories if save_path doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which covers return values) and relatively simple parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation but lacks important context about behavioral traits (network operations, error conditions) that would be needed for robust agent usage, especially with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'paper_id' is explained as a 'bioRxiv DOI' (not just any string), and 'save_path' gets a default value explanation and purpose clarification. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download PDF'), target resource ('bioRxiv paper'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the source (bioRxiv vs. arXiv, medRxiv, etc.). It's a precise verb+resource combination that differentiates this tool from other download tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_medrxiv', 'download_arxiv', or the sibling 'read_biorxiv_paper' tool. It mentions the required parameter but doesn't explain context or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the download action and default save path but omits critical behavioral details like error handling (e.g., invalid paper IDs), network dependencies, file overwriting, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool that performs external operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and output but lacks behavioral transparency for a download operation. The output schema handles return values, but more context on errors or side effects is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'paper_id' with an example format and 'save_path' with its default value. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail path validation or paper ID constraints more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download PDF') and resource ('IACR ePrint paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_iacr_paper' (which likely reads content) and 'search_iacr' (which searches). It precisely identifies the tool's function without redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'download_arxiv', 'read_iacr_paper'), it lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the tool returns 'Paper metadata in dictionary format, or empty dict if not found,' which adds useful behavioral context about the return format and error handling (empty dict for not found). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects like network calls, leaving gaps for a tool interacting with an external API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement, separate sections for Args and Returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, the second explains the parameter, the third describes the return behavior, and the fourth provides a concrete usage example. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return behavior. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail metadata fields. However, it lacks context on usage versus siblings and external API behaviors, which are minor gaps for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear definition for the single parameter 'doi' as 'Digital Object Identifier' with an example format ('10.1038/nature12373'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers the parameter, though it could note DOI format constraints or validation rules for a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific paper from CrossRef by its DOI.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('paper from CrossRef'), and method ('by its DOI'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_crossref_paper' or 'download_crossref', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'read_crossref_paper', 'download_crossref', and 'search_crossref', it's unclear if this is for metadata retrieval only, how it differs from download operations, or when to prefer it over search tools. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions downloading and saving PDFs ('Directory where the PDF is/will be saved'), implying network and file system operations, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for paper_id formats. It is appropriately sized, but the long list of formats could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (returns 'str'), the description does well by detailing parameters and the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., network usage, errors) and sibling differentiation, leaving minor gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides comprehensive details on 'paper_id' formats (8 examples with prefixes) and explains 'save_path' as a directory for PDF storage with a default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Read and extract text content') and resource ('from a Semantic Scholar paper'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'download_semantic' and 'search_semantic' by focusing on content extraction rather than downloading or searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different sources (e.g., 'read_arxiv_paper', 'read_pubmed_paper'), the description does not clarify when Semantic Scholar is preferred or what distinguishes it from other paper-reading tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the database scope (CrossRef as a scholarly infrastructure with persistent identifiers) and default/max values for max_results, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior that would help an agent use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, database context, Args with parameter details, and Returns. Some sentences could be tighter (e.g., the CrossRef explanation is slightly verbose), but overall it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters and the database context. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. It could improve by adding behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, but it's largely complete for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters with examples (e.g., query examples, default:10 max:1000 for max_results, filter syntax example, sort options). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from the CrossRef database, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'). It distinguishes from download/read siblings by focusing on search, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search_* tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed beyond the database source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling search tools (search_arxiv, search_pubmed, etc.), the description doesn't explain when CrossRef search is preferable (e.g., for DOI-based metadata, interdisciplinary coverage) or when other databases might be better suited for specific domains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading/saving PDFs (via save_path) and text extraction, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid DOI), network dependencies, file system permissions, or performance characteristics (e.g., extraction time). The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to adequately inform about operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant with the schema. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (PDF processing), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return type), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error conditions or dependencies. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'paper_id' is clarified as a 'medRxiv DOI', and 'save_path' specifies the directory purpose and default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail DOI format requirements or save_path constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read and extract text content'), the resource ('from a medRxiv paper PDF'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'download_medrxiv' (which likely downloads without extraction) and 'read_arxiv_paper' (which handles a different source). It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying the extraction functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when text extraction from medRxiv PDFs is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_medrxiv' (for just downloading) or other 'read_*' tools for different sources. It lacks any 'when-not-to-use' statements or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosure. It mentions that the tool extracts text content and saves PDFs to a directory, but it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid paper IDs), or whether it downloads PDFs if not locally available. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by labeled sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the subsequent lines clarify parameters and output without redundancy. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, details parameters, and specifies the return type. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not elaborate further. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error conditions or dependencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'paper_id' is explained with an example format ('e.g., '2106.12345''), and 'save_path' is described as the directory for PDF storage with a default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on path validation or paper ID constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read and extract text content') and target resource ('from an arXiv paper PDF'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'download_arxiv' (which likely downloads files) and 'search_arxiv' (which searches metadata). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying the resource type ('arXiv paper PDF'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_base_paper' or 'download_arxiv'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool is metadata-only (implying it won't actually download PDFs), the save_path parameter is unused, and it returns an error message. This covers key limitations and expected outcomes, though it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a critical note and clear parameter/return explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states the intent, the second warns of limitations, and the subsequent lines detail inputs and outputs without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple parameters but critical behavioral limitations), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, limitations, parameter semantics, and return values. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling tools or error-handling specifics, though the output schema reduces the need for detailed return explanations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'paper_id' is an SSRN paper identifier and 'save_path' is a directory to save the PDF but is unused. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles and types, clarifying parameter roles and limitations. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., paper_id structure) or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool downloads PDFs from SSRN, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_arxiv' or 'download_biorxiv' beyond specifying the SSRN source. The note about metadata-only limitations adds specificity but doesn't fully distinguish it from similar download tools for other repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance about when NOT to use this tool ('SSRN connector is metadata-only and download is not supported'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_ssrn_paper' or other download tools for different repositories, nor does it provide prerequisites or error handling advice beyond the return statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool only 'attempts' to read (implying potential failure), it saves PDFs to a directory, and it returns a message indicating lack of support rather than actual content. This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Note, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the limitation in Note and Returns), but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return behavior, and critical limitations. However, it could better explain the 'attempt' process or error handling for a tool with inherent constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'paper_id' as a 'CrossRef DOI' with an example, and 'save_path' as a directory for PDF saving with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Attempt to read and extract text content from a CrossRef paper,' which provides a clear verb ('read and extract') and resource ('CrossRef paper'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'read_arxiv_paper' beyond the source, and the purpose is somewhat vague due to the 'attempt' qualifier and later note about limitations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'CrossRef is a citation database and doesn't provide direct paper content. Use the DOI to access the paper through the publisher's website.' This provides clear alternatives and exclusions, helping the agent avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: that it's metadata-only and doesn't support PDF downloads. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, adds a critical note, then clearly documents parameters and return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, limitations, parameters, and return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, but the output schema reduces the need to fully describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'query' is explained as a search query string with an example, and 'max_results' is explained with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('metadata records from SSRN'), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's metadata-only and doesn't support direct PDF download. This differentiation is explicit and helpful for selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool by stating it's 'metadata-only' and doesn't support direct PDF download, which implicitly suggests alternatives for PDF access. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance beyond the PDF limitation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool downloads a PDF and saves it to a directory, but does not mention potential behavioral traits like network dependencies, error handling (e.g., if paper_id is invalid), file overwriting, or authentication needs. It adds basic context but lacks depth on operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, detailed 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is appropriately sized, though the list of paper_id formats is lengthy but necessary. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (handling multiple ID formats), low schema coverage (0%), and presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is complete. It fully explains parameters, purpose, and output, compensating for the lack of annotations and schema details, making it sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides extensive semantics for 'paper_id', listing multiple identifier formats with examples, and explains 'save_path' with its default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download PDF') and resource ('Semantic Scholar paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_semantic_paper' (which likely reads content) and other download tools for different sources (e.g., 'download_arxiv'). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for downloading PDFs from Semantic Scholar, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_with_fallback' or 'read_semantic_paper'. It provides clear context (downloading PDFs) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates results, provides per-source stats and errors, and deduplicates papers, which are valuable behavioral details. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, timeout behavior, or what happens when sources fail, leaving some gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like sections makes it easy to parse while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains all parameters thoroughly and describes the return structure. The only minor gap is that with an output schema present, the return description is somewhat redundant, but it still adds useful semantic context about aggregation and deduplication.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations. It clarifies that 'sources' accepts comma-separated names or 'all', lists all 21 available sources, explains that 'year' only works for Semantic Scholar, and describes defaults and formats for all parameters, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Unified top-level search across all configured academic platforms.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('papers'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its unified nature across multiple sources rather than searching individual platforms like the many 'search_*' siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool through its 'unified top-level search' phrasing, suggesting it's for broad searches across multiple sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling search tools, though the context makes clear this is for aggregated searching versus single-source searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well at disclosing key behavioral traits. It explicitly states that dblp doesn't provide direct paper content access, that the function returns an informative message rather than actual content, and that the save_path parameter is 'unused.' This provides crucial context about the tool's limitations and expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, important note, parameters explanation, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The note about dblp limitations is appropriately front-loaded after the purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple nature (2 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its limitations, both parameters, and what it returns. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers the tool's constrained functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters. It defines 'paper_id' as a 'dblp paper identifier' and clarifies that 'save_path' is a 'Directory where the PDF would be saved (unused).' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail about the paper_id format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attempt to read and extract text content from a dblp paper.' It specifies the verb ('read and extract'), resource ('dblp paper'), and scope ('text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' or 'download_dblp' beyond the dblp focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Note: dblp doesn't provide direct paper content access. This function returns an informative message.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for dblp papers) and sets expectations about its limited functionality compared to other download/read tools that might actually retrieve content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implied read-only), specifies the API's filtering mechanism (category-based, not full-text), and mentions the time constraint (last 30 days). It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, but provides substantial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a critical note about API behavior, then clear parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The bullet-like format for Args/Returns enhances readability without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, search operation), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema handles return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema: explains that 'query' expects category names like 'infectious_diseases' (not arbitrary keywords), provides examples, and clarifies that 'max_results' has a default of 10. This transforms generic parameter names into actionable understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from medRxiv, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_biorxiv' or 'search_arxiv' beyond mentioning the medRxiv source. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it notes that the medRxiv API filters by category name within the last 30 days, not full-text keyword search. This clearly distinguishes it from tools that might offer different search capabilities. The guidance is specific and helpful for correct tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it doesn't actually download a PDF (due to dblp's limitations) and returns an informative message instead. This transparency helps the agent understand the tool's actual behavior, though it could add more context like error handling or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, a note on limitations, and brief parameter and return explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, limitations, parameters, and return value, and the output schema handles return details, so no gaps remain for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'paper_id: dblp paper identifier' and 'save_path: Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads').' This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic types, clarifying what each parameter represents and the default value for save_path.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Download PDF for a paper from dblp.' It specifies the verb ('Download'), resource ('PDF for a paper'), and source ('from dblp'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_dblp_paper' or other download tools for different sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Note: dblp doesn't provide direct PDF access. This function returns an informative message.' This tells the agent when to use it (for dblp papers) and when not to expect a PDF download, setting clear expectations compared to alternatives like 'download_arxiv' or 'download_scihub'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 disclosure and does so effectively. It describes the multi-step fallback behavior, explains what happens on success (returns download path) versus failure (returns error message), and mentions the optional Sci-Hub fallback with configurable mirror URL. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core functionality, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The parameter explanations are terse but complete, and the overall length is appropriate for a 7-parameter tool with complex behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multi-step fallback behavior) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It explains the fallback sequence, parameter purposes, and success/failure outcomes. With no annotations, it provides all necessary operational context for the agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains the purpose of each parameter: 'source' specifies the source name with enumerated examples, 'paper_id' is the source-native identifier, 'doi' and 'title' are for fallback lookups, 'save_path' is the download directory, and the Sci-Hub parameters control optional fallback behavior. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Try source-native download, OA repositories, Unpaywall, then optional Sci-Hub') and distinguishes it from siblings by describing a multi-source fallback approach rather than single-source downloads like 'download_arxiv' or 'download_biorxiv'. It explicitly mentions the fallback hierarchy which differentiates it from simpler download tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating it tries multiple sources in sequence (source-native → OA repositories → Unpaywall → Sci-Hub). This clearly indicates it should be used when you want comprehensive download attempts with fallbacks, rather than the single-source sibling tools. The Sci-Hub fallback is explicitly marked as optional with a parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool's limitation ('metadata-only and read is not supported'), reveals what the tool actually does (returns an error message), and explains parameter behavior ('save_path' is 'unused'). This provides crucial context beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by a critical note, then parameter explanations, and finally return value information. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (it essentially always fails with an error message), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's actual behavior, parameter usage, and return value, and the output schema exists (confirming the string return type), making this description fully adequate for the agent's needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'paper_id' is identified as 'SSRN paper identifier' and 'save_path' is explicitly noted as 'unused' with context about its purpose ('Directory where the PDF is/will be saved'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read paper content from SSRN') and identifies the resource ('SSRN paper'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_ssrn' or 'search_ssrn' beyond the 'read' action, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with the note: 'SSRN connector is metadata-only and read is not supported.' This clearly indicates when NOT to use this tool (when expecting actual paper content) and sets expectations about its limitations, making it highly effective for guiding agent decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the search is limited to category-based filtering (not full-text), results are constrained to the last 30 days, and it returns paper metadata in dictionary format. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but covers the core operational constraints well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, important behavioral note, and well-organized parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The use of sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability while maintaining brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, its limitations (category-only, last 30 days), parameter semantics, and return format. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return value structure, and it appropriately focuses on usage constraints and parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic meaning for both parameters. It explains that 'query' should be a category name like 'bioinformatics' or 'neuroscience' (not arbitrary keywords), and that 'max_results' has a default of 10 and controls the maximum number of papers returned. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from bioRxiv, specifying it filters by category name within the last 30 days rather than full-text keyword search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed that might have different search mechanisms or data sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Search academic papers from bioRxiv') and provides critical exclusion guidance: 'Note: bioRxiv API filters by category name within the last 30 days, not full-text keyword search.' It also provides specific examples of valid category keywords like 'bioinformatics' and 'neuroscience' to guide proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: extracts first DOI from query, returns at most one record, returns empty list for unresolvable DOIs, and mentions API consistency for max_results. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, important constraint, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste. The information is front-loaded with the most critical constraint (DOI-centric nature) stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides complete operational context. It explains what the tool does, its limitations, how parameters work, and return behavior. With an output schema presumably covering return format, the description focuses appropriately on usage constraints and parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate fully. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains that 'query' can be DOI string or text containing DOI, clarifies that 'max_results' is kept for API consistency but Unpaywall returns max 1 record. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('lookup a DOI via Unpaywall'), resource ('OA metadata'), and scope ('DOI-centric, does not support generic keyword search'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning Unpaywall's DOI-centric nature, unlike many other search/download tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('lookup a DOI') and when not to use ('does not support generic keyword search'). It provides clear alternatives by implication - for generic searches, use other sibling tools like search_arxiv, search_crossref, etc. The guidance is specific and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 disclosure. It transparently reveals that the tool will return a message 'indicating that direct PDF download is not supported' and explains why (CrossRef doesn't provide PDFs). This manages expectations about the tool's limited functionality and failure modes, which is crucial for a tool that cannot fulfill its nominal purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and every sentence earns its place. The front-loaded purpose statement is followed by necessary details and crucial warnings. There's no redundancy or wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple nature (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, return value, and critical limitations. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and it adequately covers the behavioral context needed for this straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'paper_id' is explained as 'CrossRef DOI' with an example, and 'save_path' is described as 'Directory to save the PDF' with its default value. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on format constraints or edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attempt to download PDF of a CrossRef paper.' It specifies the exact action (download PDF), resource (CrossRef paper), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_crossref_paper_by_doi' or 'read_crossref_paper' by focusing on PDF download attempts rather than metadata retrieval or reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Note' section clarifies that 'CrossRef is a citation database and doesn't provide direct PDF downloads' and advises to 'Use the DOI to access the paper through the publisher's website.' This directly addresses when not to use this tool and suggests alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![paper-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openags/paper-search-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openags/paper-search-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![paper-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openags/paper-search-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/openags/paper-search-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/openags/paper-search-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server