search_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered structurally. The description adds only that results come back as a papers list plus metadata, and leaves the cost/latency/scope differences between 'exact', 'adaptive', and 'hybrid' unexplained — the one behavioral distinction that actually matters here.

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?

Well-structured Args/Returns layout that is easy to scan and front-loads the key differentiation. Mild waste in repeating defaults already present in the schema, but overall tight.

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 output schema exists, so the terse 'Returns' note is acceptable, and all parameters are at least named. The gap is the undefined strategy modes — for a six-parameter search tool with three distinct search strategies, an agent cannot predict which mode to pick or how they differ.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does list all six parameters. But several entries merely restate the schema (count default 5, year_start/end 'optional') while the genuinely useful additions are the enumerated values for strategy and sort_by, which the schema does not declare as enums. Strategy semantics remain undefined, so it does not fully compensate.

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 and resource ('Unified academic paper search') and explicitly names the two siblings it supersedes (scholar_search, adaptive_search). An agent can distinguish it from those tools without opening a 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?

The 'replaces scholar_search + adaptive_search' clause is an effective routing hint telling the agent to prefer this tool over those siblings. However, it gives no when-not conditions, no mention of paper_detail or profile_papers as follow-ups, and does not explain when to choose each strategy value.

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