paper_search

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return format (Markdown, ranked, page hints, linked images), but says nothing about ranking behavior, limits, or how empty queries behave.

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 filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry the missing usage and parameter context.

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?

With no output schema, the description does describe the return shape, which partially compensates. But for a 3-parameter search tool it omits when to choose it over siblings, the meaning of max_results, and any ranking or scope details an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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 67%: query and paper_id are documented (including the 'empty returns the opening chunks' behavior), while max_results has no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the mid-range baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('compact, ranked Markdown evidence with page hints and linked image paths'), which tells the agent what comes back. However, it frames the tool as an output producer rather than stating that it searches a paper's content for a query, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings paper_batch_search or paper_visual.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the clearly related siblings (paper_batch_search for multiple papers, paper_visual for visual content). The mention that paper_id comes from paper_ingest appears only in the schema, not the description, so no explicit sequencing advice is given.

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