search_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing result content (citation counts, abstracts) and venue breadth (all venues). No mention of rate limits, pagination, or result caps, but an output schema exists to carry return structure, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, source scope, and the main alternative. Sort and citation-filter behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage, but a hint on sorting or result shape would complete it.

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 83%, with query, limit, year bounds, and min_citations documented in the schema; only sort_by lacks a description there. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (papers), and source (Semantic Scholar), plus scope details: all venues, citation counts, abstracts. The second sentence distinguishes it from search_arxiv by naming the sibling and the condition that selects it.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Best for finding established or influential work' and 'Use search_arxiv for brand-new preprints' gives a clear when-to-use plus an alternative. Doesn't address the other siblings (get_paper_details, find_related_papers) or when-not-to-use beyond the arxiv split, so not quite exhaustive.

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