search_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions return type ('Dictionary containing search results') but discloses no behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. There is no indication of side effects or edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. It avoids excess verbiage, though the Args section partly duplicates schema information. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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?

For a simple search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, parameter meanings, and return type. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs alternatives) and gives no detail about the returned dictionary structure. It is adequate for invocation but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters, but 'query: Search query' is tautological. 'max_results: Maximum number of results to return' and 'sort: Sort order (bestmatch, mostrecent)' add useful semantics, including sort options not present in the schema. However, descriptions are minimal and lack constraints or format details.

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 states 'Search for records in Zenodo,' which is a specific verb (Search) and resource (records in Zenodo). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_citation, detect_data_type, get_metadata, and list_files, which have different purposes.

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 any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between search_records and sibling tools.

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