fuzzy_title_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the search is case-insensitive, returns results sorted by similarity score, includes optional BibTeX entries, and applies filters for year and venue. It also specifies default values (e.g., max_results default is 10, include_bibtex default is false). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are structured as a bulleted list, which is clear and efficient. However, the 'Returns' statement could be integrated more seamlessly, and there's minor redundancy in specifying 'case-insensitive' for both title and venue_filter separately.

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 search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose, all parameter semantics, and key behavioral aspects like sorting and defaults. The main gap is the lack of output details (only mentions 'publication objects' without specifying structure), but given the complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a minor shortfall.

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?

Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by providing detailed semantics for all 7 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, data types, requirements, defaults, and constraints (e.g., similarity_threshold range 0-1, case-insensitive matching for title and venue_filter). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making the parameters well-understood.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search DBLP for publications with fuzzy title matching.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('publications'), and method ('fuzzy title matching'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search' (which lacks the fuzzy matching specification) and 'get_author_publications' (which focuses on authors rather than titles).

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 through the mention of 'fuzzy title matching' and the parameter explanations, suggesting it's for finding publications when the exact title isn't known. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the generic 'search' tool or 'get_author_publications', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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