research_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the workflow steps (search, then OA status lookup), the data source (Unpaywall), and a key optimization: 'Abstracts are taken from the search response itself — no extra OpenAlex calls.' This adds valuable behavioral context, though it doesn't address error handling or what happens if Unpaywall fails.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core workflow. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, output schema present), the description adequately covers the workflow, the data source, and the intended output. The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. It could mention limitations, but the schema already handles constraints, making this sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references the 'query' parameter in the first sentence, clarifying its role, but does not add details beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No additional semantics are needed.

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 its purpose as a 'Convenience workflow' that searches OpenAlex, enriches results with OA status from Unpaywall, and returns a compact overview. This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings like search_papers (search only) and find_oa_pdf (find PDFs).

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 clear usage context, calling it a 'Convenience workflow' 'suitable for quickly assessing a research area.' This implies when to use it but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling tools are listed, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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