paperbridge_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the auth prerequisite (login first), the access-limited result scope, and the pagination contract via next_page. It does not discuss rate limits or result caps, which is a minor gap rather than a contradiction.

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, front-loaded clauses, each carrying a distinct instruction (scope, fields, paging, selection, auth) with no filler. The terse telegraphic style is efficient, though the ordering of the login prerequisite last slightly buries an action the agent must take before anything else.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers scope, pagination, downstream selection, and auth. The only real omission is the meaning of the page/page_size inputs, so an agent can call it correctly but must infer paging granularity.

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 has to carry parameter meaning. It clarifies course_code's purpose and hints at paging behavior through next_page, but page and page_size (with their 1-100 bounds) are never explained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 (retrieve past exam papers by course code) plus scope (only ones the caller has access to) and even names the return fields (title, academic year, record_id). It explicitly distinguishes itself from paperbridge_details by defining the selection step as details' job, so an agent can tell the siblings apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit operational rules: continue paging when next_page is present, do not guess paper IDs, call paperbridge_details before choosing by 正考/补考 or semester rather than trusting a same-named title, and call paperbridge_login first when unauthenticated. Both when-to-use and when-to-defer are covered with named alternatives.

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