search_publication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds that the search occurs after a 'shared scope gate,' implying a precondition, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the gate involves, or what happens if the gate is not passed. No information about output format, error behavior, or rate limits is provided.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No words are wasted, but the cryptic 'shared scope gate' phrase could be clarified without adding much length. Overall, it is compact and to the point.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools with overlapping functions. The description does not explain the parameters, the expected inputs, the output, or when to use this tool. This is inadequate for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'url', 'question', 'search_term', or 'max_matches' at all, leaving their roles entirely unclear. This is a significant gap because the agent cannot determine what to pass as a 'question' versus a 'search_term' or how 'url' relates to the search.

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 identifies the action (search) and the resource (publication text and linked data files), which distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_publication_text and get_data_file. However, the phrase 'after passing the shared scope gate' is vague and could confuse agents about the actual purpose or prerequisite.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('after passing the shared scope gate') but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_publication_text or get_data_file. There is no guidance on when to prefer search_publication over the sibling getter tools, and the nature of the 'shared scope gate' is left undefined.

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