search_iacr

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.