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

Annotations already declare this as safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful context: the data source (OpenAIRE Graph), the fact that no auth is required, and the full list of returned fields. It does not detail pagination behavior, but that is partially covered by the schema and the safety profile is already in annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines what is searched, the second states the filtering options, and the third enumerates the returned fields and data source. The most critical information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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 output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return structure in detail, but it still lists key fields. It covers the data source, auth requirement (none), example queries, product types, and the linkage to product_details. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool 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 100%, with each parameter already described and examples given for query. The description restates that filtering is by free-text query and/or output type but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With this high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as the OpenAIRE Graph, listing the exact content types (publications, datasets, software, other research outputs). It includes concrete example queries and explicitly notes the id is for use with openaire.product_details, distinguishing this search tool from the details sibling.

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 makes clear the tool is for searching the research graph across product types, and connects to product_details by noting the returned id is meant for that follow-up call. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative search tools (e.g., openaire.projects.search), but the context is unambiguous for the standard search → details workflow.

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