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

The description adds useful context about the data source (~73k works) and return fields (DOI, title, journal, date). However, it inaccurately claims support for a 'subject' filter that does not exist in the schema, which is a significant behavioral misstatement. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, but the false claim undermines transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the main purpose and returns. The inaccurate 'subject' mention is a content issue, but the structure remains concise.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, scope, and return fields, which is helpful since there is no output schema. It omits details like result ordering or pagination, and the false 'subject' claim creates a gap in accurate understanding. Overall, reasonably complete but not perfect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter details beyond the schema and actually introduces a non-existent 'subject' parameter, misleading the agent about available filters. This is a net negative.

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 identifies the purpose: searching retracted literature from Crossref, with keyword and year-range filters. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on retractions. However, it mentions an optional 'subject' filter that is not present in the schema, creating minor ambiguity.

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 implies usage for searching retracted works but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_retraction. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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