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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, it discloses substantive behavior: results are guaranteed non-fabricated with resolvable DOI/PubMed IDs, retracted papers are dropped by default, preprints are included but flagged preprint:true, and ranking alternates between the two databases. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the anti-fabrication guarantee, then layers filters and defaults in compact sentences. Slightly list-like but nearly 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 values need not be explained, and the description still covers the essentials: sources queried, result trustworthiness, retraction and preprint handling, ranking, and filters. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents every parameter, its bounds, and enum-like study type ids. The description only restates the filter categories (year range, open access, study types, result count) without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource (search PubMed and OpenAlex for real papers) and adds the scope 'finds sources for a claim or a topic'. It is clearly the discovery/retrieval tool, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling verification tools (verify_references, check_retractions), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 for when to reach for it (to find sources for a claim or topic) and enumerates the available filters and their defaults. It does not state exclusions or explicitly route the agent to an alternative when verification is wanted, so it stops short of 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.