Research a topic (search + full abstracts)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the process of searching and fetching metadata via OAI-PMH, and notes the trade-off of fewer results for more work. However, it does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, which are minor for this type of tool.

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 key idea ('One-shot literature scan') and efficiently conveys the process, trade-offs, and differences from siblings without waste.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the workflow, output format (digest with abstracts), and how it differs from related tools. No output schema is needed as the description implies return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context beyond the schema (e.g., why limit is small), but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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 clearly states it performs a one-shot literature scan via keyword search across PhilPapers/PhilArchive and fetches full abstracts via OAI-PMH. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with search_papers and noting it returns fewer results because it does more work per item.

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 description implies using this tool for a ready-to-read digest in a single call, contrasting with search_papers + get_paper per result. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the context of sibling tools is provided.

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