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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral boundaries: results are bounded, normalized, and do not include abstracts or full text, which helps an agent set expectations beyond the annotations.

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 conveys the action, query scope, result contents, and limitations with no filler. Every phrase adds useful signal.

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 an output schema and strong annotations present, the description covers the primary search intent, result bounds, and exclusions. It could be more explicit about the distinction from crossref-doi-metadata, but is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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 only 17%, and the description does not compensate. It repeats the query types already in the schema, mentions 'bounded' results, but provides no explanation of sort_by, work_type, max_results, or date filter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Crossref bibliographic metadata'), and defines the query scope ('by title, author, DOI fragment, or citation'). It also states return types and exclusions ('without abstracts or full text'), making its purpose distinct from the sibling DOI metadata tool.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when searching Crossref metadata by bibliographic clues, not when looking for exact DOI metadata. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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