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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the exact record contents (accelerator, institutions, subgroups, lifecycle dates, paper count) and the chaining affordance via literatureQuery, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the searchable resource and examples before the record-shape detail. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long, though no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description's enumeration of record fields is still useful for judging downstream chaining to the literature tools. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description already spells out the accepted query forms (name, legacy name like CERN-LHC-CMS, digits-only recid). The description restates these acceptable inputs but adds no format details or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Find') and resource ('experiments, collaborations, and facilities in INSPIRE-HEP') with concrete examples (ATLAS, CMS, DUNE, Belle II). The scope is clearly narrower than search_literature or search_authors, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context on what can be searched (name, accelerator, INSPIRE legacy name, recid) and explicitly routes downstream work to cern_inspire_search_literature or cern_inspire_get_citation_summary via the literatureQuery field. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over search_authors or search_hepdata, so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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