Search papers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value the annotations don't: the shape of the returned records. It omits any note on rate limits, result-window behavior, or empty-result handling, which for an open-world search API would be useful.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by return shape and then query syntax. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 correctly compensates by listing returned fields. Combined with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by showing field-search syntax ('author:Coelho', 'year:2020-2024'), which the schema's plain example does not teach. It adds nothing about sort or max_results, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (NASA ADS papers), names the domain, and enumerates what comes back (bibcodes, titles, authors, years, citation counts). This lets an agent distinguish it from get_paper_details, get_author_papers, and export_bibtex without opening any schema.

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?

Tells the agent how to formulate input ('natural language queries or specific field searches') and gives three concrete query examples, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer a sibling (e.g., get_paper_details once you have a bibcode) or when-not to use it.

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