search_literature

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirement (ADS token via skyquery login), fallback to arXiv, and row cap of 50. No contradictions.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure coverage is sufficient. Covers input parameter behavior mostly, but missing explanation of 'prefer' parameter. Otherwise complete for a search 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 has 0% description coverage. Description explains 'rows' cap (max 50) and indirectly 'prefer' by mentioning fallback, but does not explain the 'prefer' parameter's purpose (e.g., force ADS vs arXiv). 'query' is self-explanatory. Partial added 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 tool searches astronomy literature with specific sources (NASA ADS or arXiv) and lists the returned fields (title, authors, year, bibcode, URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings which are different domain tools.

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?

Provides clear context: use to search literature, with fallback behavior when ADS token missing. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools are distinct so implied.

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