search_research_evidence

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions optional full-text escalation but does not explain the process, limitations, or outcomes for other parameters.

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 sentence, concise but overly sparse for a tool with 8 parameters. It could benefit from structured breakdown of key points.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits explanations for most parameters and fails to describe return format or pagination.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions query and full-text escalation. It fails to explain crucial parameters like context, yearFrom, maxResults, includeAdjacentFields, maxFullTextPapers, and maxFullTextCharsPerPaper.

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 OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar for research relevant to a claim or topic, with optional full-text escalation. This verb+resource combination is moderately specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_doings_knowledge.

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 (e.g., search_doings_knowledge). The description lacks context about prerequisites or best scenarios.

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