align_paper_by_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but does not disclose whether the tool mutates data, requires authentication, or handles edge cases like no matches. The read-only nature is inferred from sibling tools but not explicitly confirmed.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, but the description does not specify the output format or behavior for edge cases. While the output schema exists, the description lacks guidance on usage expectations and integration with sibling tools.

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 explain parameters. It does not provide any meaning for 'title', 'arxiv_max_results', or 'semantic_scholar_max_results' beyond what the schema already conveys. The agent must infer that max_results limits the number of results per source.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find exact title matches', identifies the two resources (Semantic Scholar and arXiv), and specifies the outcome (aligned cross-source pairs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_arxiv and search_semantic_scholar that perform general searches without alignment.

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 implies using this tool when you have a specific title and want cross-source alignment. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the usage clear.

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