search_webofscience

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields returned). For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of a 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results look like, how they're structured, or any behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors. For a tool interacting with an external academic database, more context about output format and operational constraints is needed.

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%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., query, maxResults, year, author, journal, sortBy, sortOrder). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('academic papers from Web of Science database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_scopus or search_semantic_scholar, which serve similar purposes for different databases.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for searching different academic databases (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_scopus), the description offers no context on Web of Science's specific coverage, strengths, or when it might be preferred over other search tools.

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