research_frontier_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'live' and 'dated' but does not disclose whether this makes network calls, potential rate limits, side effects, or the structure of the returned data. This is insufficient for a tool hitting external APIs.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise, but its extreme brevity sacrifices essential usage and behavior context, preventing a top score.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and search behavior more fully. It only hints at outputs ('papers, topics, gaps') without detailing structure, pagination, or how 'nearest' is determined. The tool's role within the sibling suite is also unclear.

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 coverage is only 33% (from_date documented). The description adds minimal parameter context, implying 'dated' relates to from_date and 'nearest' relates to limit, but it does not explicitly explain query semantics or limit constraints. It fails to compensate for the undocumented query and limit parameters.

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 tool's function: running a 'dated live OpenAlex+Crossref frontier search' for 'nearest papers, topics and gaps.' It names specific external sources and output types, making it distinct from sibling tools like research_rag_query.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios that would favor this over research_bootstrap or research_route.

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