search_papers

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 and does not meet it. It says nothing about whether results are metadata-only or full text, whether multi-source results are deduplicated or ranked, rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination — the "etc." leaves the actual source set undefined.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is brief to the point of under-specification, and the trailing "etc." is filler that conveys no information. Front-loading is fine; the content is just thin for a 12-parameter aggregator.

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 12-parameter, multi-platform tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot tell what comes back, how sources are merged, or how this tool relates to the large family of single-platform and workflow siblings.

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 12 parameters are already documented in the schema, including enum values, defaults, and per-platform caveats. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation rather than a failure.

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 and resource ("Search academic papers") and claims multi-source coverage. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many per-platform siblings (search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_crossref, etc.), and the multi-source framing is at odds with a platform parameter that defaults to a single source (crossref).

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to use this generic search versus the platform-specific siblings, nor when to pass platform="all" versus a single source. The only routing hint ("prefer search_literature for seed-aware workflows") lives in the schema, not the description.

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