search_core

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.