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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: at most 3 candidates, JSON-only output, no payment, caveat that it does not claim a paper proves a statement, and inclusion of retraction/correction warnings. It omits minor operational details like auth, rate limits, and error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the core value is front-loaded, behavioral constraints are stated, and sibling routing is saved for last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main return contents and selection context well. It is slightly incomplete around how date filters, open-access-only, and field minimization affect results, but as a clearly bounded free-preview tool it gives enough to invoke 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 coverage is 50%: query, fields, and exclude_known_retracted have descriptions, but to_year, from_year, and open_access_only do not. The description does not compensate for those undocumented parameters, though their names are largely self-explanatory. The output list indirectly aligns with the fields enum but does not explain how the fields parameter shapes the response.

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: returns a free triage with up to 3 scholarly candidates for a question or topic. The description enumerates the returned metadata and explicitly distinguishes the tool from evidence_pack and citation_report_preview.

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 explicit when-to-use context: free triage for a question/topic. It also names alternatives and the conditions that select them: use evidence_pack for up to 10 candidates and citation_report_preview for checking references you already have.

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