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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds non-annotation context: it's free, requires no key, and uses the polite pool, which tells the agent about rate/access behavior not encoded anywhere else. It doesn't mention throttling specifics or pagination, keeping it a notch below top marks.

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 compact clauses with zero waste, front-loading the action and access model before the sibling-routing note. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed, and the description still summarizes key result fields. Combined with full annotation coverage and a complete schema, it's nearly self-sufficient; only minor operational details (pagination, rate limits) are absent.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are fully documented in the schema including the default and max for limit. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('Search OpenAlex scholarly works') and enumerates the returned fields (titles, years, DOIs, citation counts, authors). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling ('use crossref_works for canonical DOI metadata'), so the agent can separate it from the many scholarly-search siblings without opening either 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 explicit routing: 'Use for literature discovery and citation signal' and names the alternative (crossref_works) with the condition that selects it (canonical DOI metadata). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance the dimension asks for.

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