search_literature

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention how results are ordered, how sources are selected, caching behavior, or any side effects. The tool remains opaque beyond the basic search function.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or extraneous content. It is concise, though under-specified.

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 complexity (11 parameters, output schema present), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any context about return behavior, source configuration, or search semantics, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter semantics. With 11 parameters, including filtering options like venue, year, and open_access_only, the description does nothing to clarify their usage or meaning.

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 it searches open scholarly literature, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_work (retrieving specific works) or resolve_identifiers (ID mapping), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search variants like plan_literature_search.

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. The description only states its primary function without mentioning specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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