Search philosophy papers

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the source (OpenAlex), output fields, and conditional inclusion of PDF URLs. No destructive side effects are implied, and the read-only nature is clear.

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 concise: four sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with purpose, then details output, then references sibling tools. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values. It also mentions the underlying service (OpenAlex) and the broader tool ecosystem. No gaps remain for an agent to decide usage.

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 context about output fields but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 the tool performs keyword search across PhilPapers/PhilArchive, returns specific fields (title, authors, year, abstract, id, URL, PDF URL), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'research' for richer digests. Verb+resource is precise.

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 explicitly advises using 'research' for full abstracts, and mentions using the returned id with other tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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