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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the rejection of multi-identifier calls, states that no API key is required, and includes a Portuguese trigger phrase. It does not cover not-found errors or response format details, but the provided behavior is meaningfully transparent for a lookup tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage modes, rejection behavior, auth, and a localization trigger. Each sentence earns its place, though the Portuguese phrase is slightly tangential to tool mechanics and could be seen as extra.

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 and no annotations, the description covers return fields, invocation modes, rejection behavior, and auth requirements. The schema supplies pagination defaults and cursor semantics. The only notable gap is explicit handling of unknown identifiers or error responses, which is minor for a read-only verification tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by defining mutual exclusivity among slug, doi, and codigo, and clarifying that limit and cursor apply to browsing mode. This gives agents higher-level usage context the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Crivum's published, citable records'), and enumerates the fields returned (title, authors, DOI, tier, score). It clearly distinguishes the single-record verification mode from the browse mode, and the focus on record verification separates it from sibling tools like evaluate_text and screen_text.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: pass exactly one of slug, doi, or codigo to check one record, or omit all three to browse. It also states that multiple identifiers are rejected. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the when-to-use instructions for this tool's modes are unambiguous.

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