search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral facts: results are bibliographic metadata only, abstracts/full-text/PDF fields are absent, and the server never follows provider landing links. Missing rate-limit, pagination, and failure behavior keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, zero waste, with the core action in the first clause and the SSRN exclusion front-loaded. Each remaining sentence adds a distinct constraint (content shape, link trust).

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?

Return-value expectations are well covered despite there being no output schema, but for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage the omission of limit and allowed source values leaves an agent guessing about basic invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not: it never mentions 'limit', never states that 'source' accepts only openalex/crossref values, and never explains query syntax or matching behavior. The provider names only loosely hint at the source parameter.

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) plus the resource (OpenAlex or Crossref research metadata) and explicitly excludes SSRN, which cleanly separates it from get_ssrn_reference_link. An agent can pick this tool over get_paper_by_doi or find_open_access_link 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 negative guidance ('never search SSRN directly') is explicit and useful, but there is no positive statement of when to prefer this over get_paper_by_doi (known DOI) or find_open_access_link (link resolution). Usage is only implied by the provider names.

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