Search By Year

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only '(paginated)', which is already visible via limit/offset in the schema; it says nothing about ordering, whether a bare year is an exact match, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scoping concept (year vs range) and pagination note are both stated in one pass.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all parameters are documented. The remaining gap is routing guidance among the many sibling search tools and any behavioral notes, which the description does not supply.

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 all four parameters (year, start_year, limit, offset) are already documented, including that year doubles as the end year for a range. The description restates the range concept without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (papers) with the discriminating scope (publication year or year range), which is clearer than a generic search tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search, search_by_author, or search_fulltext, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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 implied by the scope: use this when the filter is a publication year or range. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling search tools that also return papers, leaving the agent to guess which search entry point to pick.

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