search_papers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: OpenAlex matches full text so a hit may merely cite the idea, the reply names which services were queried, and FOOTBALL_DOCS_PAPERS=off disables lookups entirely.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and sources, then usage, then caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the block is dense and the full-text caveat is woven in mid-paragraph rather than isolated.

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 5-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool the description covers sources, matching behavior, routing to siblings and an environment gate. It only lightly touches what the reply looks like beyond naming the services queried, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents query, sources, year_from/year_to and max_results with examples and defaults. The description's query-syntax hints (quoted phrases, AND/OR/NOT) largely restate the schema, and only the full-text matching nuance goes beyond it. 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 (search) and resource (scholarly papers) with the exact scope: OpenAlex, arXiv and SportRxiv, and which fields each covers (title, abstract, full text). An agent can distinguish it from get_paper, read_paper and search_docs without opening any 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?

Gives concrete use cases (find the paper behind xG, VAEP, EPV, pitch control, or works that cite an idea) and an explicit alternative path for material without a DOI: search the web and read it with get_web_source. Both when-to-use and when-to-route-elsewhere are stated.

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