search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a notable behavior beyond the name: it searches all configured providers and marks papers already held. However, it does not say whether marking is persistent, whether external providers are queried live, or whether side effects are possible.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the distinguishing 'mark papers already held' behavior. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, yet the description only covers the general action. It leaves include_closed unexplained, does not define what 'already held' means, and omits any operational caveats. The output schema covers return shape, but invocation semantics are incomplete.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for query, limit, or include_closed. The agent must infer the semantics of include_closed and limit entirely from names/defaults, with no compensating detail in the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('all configured literature providers'), and adds a distinct behavioral outcome ('mark papers already held'). This clearly separates it from siblings like fetch, library, and providers without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

'Search all configured literature providers' implies this is the cross-provider discovery tool, but the description never explicitly says when to use search versus siblings like fetch or library. Usage context is only implied, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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