search_reference

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool automatically searches all major databases, deduplicates results, ranks by relevance, and returns complete metadata, abstracts, BibTeX, citation counts, and source databases. This gives an accurate behavioral model beyond the schema, though it omits failure modes or rate-limit considerations.

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?

The description is long but well organized into clear sections: purpose, when-to-use, behavior, args, and returns. Each section serves a distinct decision point, and front-loading the core purpose helps an agent parse quickly. There is minor redundancy in repeating the BibTeX outcome, but nothing is extraneous.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by specifying the return dictionary structure and the fields each reference contains. It also covers all input parameters and the automatic multi-database behavior. It omits edge cases like missing metadata or pagination, but the core invocation contract is fully specified.

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 must fully compensate, and it does. For query it explains what terms work best; for max_results it gives range and focused-search guidance; for year and author it states the filtering behavior. All four parameters carry meaning beyond their bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search academic literature databases (DBLP, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, OpenAlex) to find research papers and return properly formatted BibTeX citations.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic siblings like 'search' and 'fetch' by naming the academic databases and the BibTeX output format, so an agent can identify it uniquely.

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?

The description provides an explicit 'Use this tool when the user needs' block covering academic citations, BibTeX entries, paper metadata, and literature search results. This gives an agent clear context for when to invoke it, but it doesn't name any alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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