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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the access model (public API, no key), the coverage limit (titles and metadata only, no file contents), and a precise billing contract: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls uncharged. That payment/rate context is exactly what an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: scope and returned fields first, then the coverage boundary, then cost. Each sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still names the returned fields, and it covers the two facts an agent cannot get from structured data: no authentication is needed and calls incur a small per-success charge. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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%, documenting q (1-200 chars) and limit (1-25, default 5). The description adds only the implication that q matches titles and metadata rather than full text; it gives no syntax, operator, or pagination guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (Figshare public article search) and enumerates exactly what is returned: id, title, DOI, publication date, item type and page link for articles, datasets and figures. It also draws a clear boundary against full-text tools by stating file contents are not returned, which separates it from sibling search_* academic sources like crossref or datacite.

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?

Provides useful context — public API, no key required — and implicitly frames usage as metadata/title lookup rather than full-text retrieval. However, it never states when to choose this over the many sibling academic search tools (search_crossref, search_datacite_metadata, search_pubmed_article_metadata) or any exclusions, so routing is left to inference.

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