scan_openalex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: side effect of inserting into news_briefs, free API with no key, and default query fallback chain. However, it does not address rate limits, pagination, or error handling.

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 highly concise: one introductory line, one context line, one side-effect line, and structured parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains all parameters and the insertion side effect. However, it does not mention what the function returns or any limitations of the OpenAlex API.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters clearly, including the default resolution for query. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare definitions. Minor gap: no format constraints or examples.

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 scans OpenAlex for recent papers and inserts results into news_briefs. It specifies the database size and free API access. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like scan_literature or search_literature, though the specific source and action provide sufficient clarity.

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 explains default query behavior but does not state scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate, such as when a broader search or different source is needed.

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