score_paper_relevance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two error conditions (missing OpenAlex record and underlying model failure) and explains the citation-impact filtering rule, including the one-year exemption. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Every sentence carries necessary content: the scoring criterion, the usage context, and the failure behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and sibling context, the description covers its need: why to call it, what to pass, how it decides, and what to expect when it errors.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description has to convey parameter meaning. It explains concept_summary as the reference for scoring and clarifies that paper is a candidate from search_arxiv_papers. It does not detail paper field internals, but those are inherited from that tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource: score a paper's relevance and novelty against a concept summary, and check its citation impact. This clearly distinguishes it from search_arxiv_papers (retrieval) and find_foundational_citations.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use: apply this tool to each candidate from search_arxiv_papers to decide reading-list membership. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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