search_wiley

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively by disclosing the tool is deprecated and non-functional (Wiley TDM API does not support keyword search). It explains the behavioral limitation clearly and provides a workaround. No contradictions exist since annotations are absent.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: it starts with DEPRECATED, explains the limitation, and provides the alternative workflow in two clear sentences. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted information.

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 tool's deprecation status and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains why the tool shouldn't be used, provides a full alternative workflow using sibling tools, and clarifies the parameter's irrelevance. No output schema is needed for a deprecated 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why the parameter is irrelevant (tool is deprecated) and redirecting usage to search_crossref. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's deprecation notice, elevating the score.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose is deprecated and redirects to an alternative (search_crossref). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying Wiley TDM API limitations and providing a specific workflow alternative. The purpose is specific and actionable despite being a deprecation notice.

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 provides explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (DEPRECATED) and offers a clear alternative workflow (use search_crossref, then download_paper with platform='wiley'). It names specific sibling tools to use instead, making the guidance comprehensive and actionable.

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