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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that it returns source-linked metadata rather than generated findings or global literature results. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then the key scope boundary. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, scope limitation, and return nature, which is sufficient for a basic search call. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, it leaves important parameter semantics unexplained, especially the kind filter and limit.

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 compensate for all parameter meaning. It only hints that queries may include controlled Persian/Chinese terms and says nothing about the kind enum values, the limit parameter, or query length constraints. This is a partial but insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search existing public research and academic-service records. It usefully rules out a global literature search and generated findings, which clarifies the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling profile and citation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 finding existing records and explicitly excludes global literature search and generated findings. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus get_amir_research_profile or get_amir_publication_citation, so the agent must infer routing.

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