search_base

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.