paper_batch_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond that: batching multiple questions into a single round trip. It says nothing about partial results, failure handling per question, or how "adaptively bounded" retrieval behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or restatement of the tool title. It is appropriately sized, though "adaptively bounded" is unexplained shorthand that spends words without adding meaning.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what comes back per question; it does not, so return format and result structure must be discovered by calling. The input side is fully covered by the schema, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 100% and includes cache behavior for path, the path-vs-paper_id exclusion, and the 32-item maxItems bound. The description only echoes the 32-question limit already enforced by the schema, adding no syntax, format, or selection nuance. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the load.

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 pairs a clear verb ("Retrieve") with a resource ("evidence") and states a scope (up to 32 questions in one call), which is enough to tell it is a batch variant. However, "adaptively bounded evidence" is undefined jargon, and no sibling (paper_search, paper_ingest) is named to anchor the distinction. An agent can guess the purpose but not confidently differentiate it from paper_search.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when paper_search or paper_ingest is the better choice, and no preconditions (e.g. that a paper must be ingested first). The batch framing implies a use case but nothing is stated explicitly.

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