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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces by describing it as a search tool. The description adds value by noting the keyless/free tier and 12-hour cache, providing behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence followed by a compact list of sources, modes, and key features. Every piece of information earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 enums, output schema exists), the description covers the high-level purpose, data sources, modes, and operational features (keyless, cache). It does not explain return values, but that is handled by the output schema. The async parameter is mentioned only in the schema, which is 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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about modes and sources but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline without significant enhancement.

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 it performs multi-source scientific literature search (Recherche bibliographique multi-sources) and lists specific sources (OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, PubMed, CrossRef) and modes (search, meta_analysis, citation_network, expert_finder). This distinctly sets it apart from siblings, most of which are business or technical tools.

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 specifies the search modes and mentions keyless/free tier with LRU cache, providing context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like research_paper_qa or web_search_multilang, so guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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