Metis · Librarian — Scan Openalex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are inserted into news_briefs with source_type='article' and that the API is free and keyless. However, it does not cover rate limits, response format, error behavior, or what happens if max_results is exceeded. The fallback chain is helpful but behavioral aspects are partially covered.

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 two sentences plus a bulleted Args section. Every element adds value: the opening sentence states purpose, the second adds key context (coverage, API, side effect), and the Args map cleanly to the schema. No wasted words.

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 has no required parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and side effects (insertion into news_briefs). The fallback chain ensures the agent understands default behavior even without explicit user input. This is complete for a data-gathering tool.

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 does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with defaults and fallback logic for query, days_back, and max_results. The query parameter's fallback chain adds crucial context beyond the schema's type/default.

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 explicitly states the action ('Scan OpenAlex for recent papers matching a query'), specifies the resource (OpenAlex), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_semantic_scholar or search_literature. The verb 'scan' combined with 'recent papers' and 'query' leaves no ambiguity.

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 useful context on query defaults and the free API, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_literature, search_semantic_scholar). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given, so the agent must infer from the OpenAlex-specific scope.

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