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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context such as 'keyless' (no auth needed) and lists output fields, which helps set expectations. Yet it omits details like query optionality, pagination, or potential result limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose, data source, authentication mode, and key output fields with no redundant words. It uses a dash to efficiently append relevant details.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core aspects: what it searches, where from, and what fields are returned. It falls slightly short of full completeness by not noting that the query is optional or what happens with no query, but the tool's simplicity makes these gaps acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% because the single parameter 'query' already has a descriptive comment with an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, only mentions output fields. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('scholarly research works'), and adds the source (OpenAlex) and keyness (keyless) to distinguish it from other search tools. It also lists the key result fields (titles, authors, year, citation counts), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for scholarly research by naming the resource type, which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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