search_publications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool performs a search, without mentioning any behavioral traits such as result format, pagination behavior, error handling, or performance characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema.

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, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose and key search options without any filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It fails to explain how results are returned, how pagination works, or how the search interacts with filters. The one-sentence description is insufficient to fully understand and correctly invoke the tool in all contexts.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description's mention of subject, author, journal, and keyword adds no semantic value beyond the schema, as these are already exhaustively described in the 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 searches for articles and publications in TR Dizin, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_journals and search_authors by focusing on publications, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by listing searchable fields (subject, author, journal, keyword), guiding when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative tools for other resource types, leaving room for clearer differentiation.

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