findVerifiedPapers

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that results are filtered to verified citations with DOIs — an agent knows unverifiable hits will be dropped. It does not disclose aggregation/dedup behavior across the eight sources, per-source failure handling, or latency, which matters for a fan-out search.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb, the resource, and the key guarantee in the right order. The parenthetical enumeration of all eight sources partly duplicates the source enum already present in the schema, which is the only wasted space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics; it says results are verified citations with DOIs but not their shape, cross-source deduplication, or ranking. For a five-parameter multi-source fan-out tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps even though the core purpose is clear.

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 100%, so every parameter including the source enum, yearFrom/yearTo, and per-source limit is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, default, or interpretation guidance (e.g., that total results can be up to limit × number of sources), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (papers across eight named academic databases) plus the distinctive outcome: only verified, real citations with DOIs. It implicitly separates itself from verifyCitation/batchVerifyCitations by being the discovery step rather than the verification step, but it never states that contrast explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Search' versus the sibling names verifyCitation and batchVerifyCitations; the description never says 'use this to find papers first, then verify with verifyCitation.' No prerequisites, exclusions, or guidance on when to prefer a single-source search.

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