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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that results come live from OpenAlex, are ranked by relevance, and that a free full-text URL is included only for open-access works. It omits rate limits and pagination behavior, but the limit param covers the latter.

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 source come first, then ranking and return fields, then sibling routing last – an ideal front-loaded order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of enumerating the returned fields (OpenAlex id, DOI, title, authors, venue, year, citation count, OA full-text URL). Combined with source, ranking, filters, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters with examples and defaults. The description reinforces that author, year, and open-access-only are optional filters and that the keyword spans title/abstract/fulltext, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search scholarly works), names the data source and scale (~250M works via OpenAlex), and specifies the searched fields (title, abstract, full text). It is clearly distinguishable from paper_details, paper_get_text, and paper_fulltext_search.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to paper_fulltext_search for searching the locally indexed open-access corpus, implying this tool is for live, broad-coverage keyword search. There is no explicit 'when not to use' beyond that single alternative, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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