search_by_community

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return value as a list of record summaries but does not mention that the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The lack of explicit safety disclosure is a gap.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. It is relatively concise but includes some repetition (e.g., listing defaults that are already in schema). Could be slightly tighter.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters and return summary. However, it could add context about valid community IDs, pagination limits, or relationship to sibling tools. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility. It provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters: community (string), query (optional), sort (with examples 'bestmatch' or 'mostrecent'), page, and size. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Search for records within a specific Zenodo community', specifying the verb (search), resource (records), and scope (within a community). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_records (general) and search_by_funder.

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 when targeting a specific community but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_records or search_by_funder. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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