Research Mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses return fields but omits details like error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the action and outcome.

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 simple tool with no output schema, description adequately explains input and output. Minor gap: no mention of behavior on missing ID.

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 0%, but description adds meaning by specifying accepted input formats (OpenAlex ID or DOI) and examples, which compensates significantly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'paper by OpenAlex ID or DOI', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_papers and list_papers_by_author.

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 use for a single paper lookup but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'FREE', implying no cost, but doesn't confirm read-only nature, side effects, or return format. For a health check, critical details like latency or error responses are omitted.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It earns its place but does not fully convey the tool's function.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value or effect. It merely states 'Health check' without clarifying success indicators, error states, or expected behavior. The tool is simple but incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description has no burden to explain them. Baseline of 4 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% with an empty schema.

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 'Health check. FREE.' vaguely indicates the tool is for checking health status, but it doesn't specify what action it performs or what response to expect. It is not a tautology but is too brief to clearly distinguish its purpose from a simple ping.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_paper, list_papers_by_author, search_papers). The context suggests it's different, but the description lacks any usage context or disclaimers.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return format and that it's free, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limiting, what 'recent' means (time frame), or required authentication. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the core action and provides output format succinctly.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics: action, resource, filter, and return shape. However, it omits details like the range of limit, pagination, and definition of 'recent', leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'author name' implying the author parameter is a name but does not detail format (e.g., full name vs. last name). The limit parameter is not addressed at all.

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 the action ('List recent papers'), the resource ('papers'), and the filter ('by an author name'), with an explicit source ('OpenAlex'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_papers' (which likely has broader search) and 'get_paper' (single paper).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions 'FREE discovery' but does not explain when to use search_papers instead or any prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is free and returns a specific structure, suggesting a read-only discovery operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The return format is helpful but incomplete for full 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 extremely concise (two short sentences plus a return type example), with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose and output format, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, input semantics, and return format fairly well. However, it could be more complete by explaining the 'limit' parameter and explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'query' parameter via 'by keyword' but does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its default. The output structure description partially compensates, but limit semantics are missing.

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 'Search 250M+ academic papers by keyword', specifying the verb (search), resource (academic papers), and scope (keyword-based, 250M+ papers). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_paper (single paper retrieval) and list_papers_by_author (author-filtered search).

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 keyword-based discovery ('FREE discovery'), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_paper or list_papers_by_author. No when-not or alternative naming is provided, making it adequate but not strong.

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