AxPaperSearch_search_openalex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns scholarly works with citation counts, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not describe the result format, pagination, ordering, or any rate limits. For a read-only search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the main function, the comparison to arXiv, and the practical use case. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the domain of results, and the practical use case (cross-checking claims and citation impact). It does not explain result ordering or pagination, but these are minor for a search tool with a 'limit' parameter.

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 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'OpenAlex for scholarly works', and explicitly contrasts with arXiv by noting broader coverage of published venues, DOIs, and citation counts. This distinguishes it from the sibling AxPaperSearch_search_arxiv without ambiguity.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'cross-checking whether a claim is actually well established in the literature, and by how much it is cited.' It implies arXiv might be preferred for preprints or quick searches, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond the implicit arXiv comparison.

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