radar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details the returned data (papers with flags, tooling, funder panel) and implies a safe read operation. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but the output description is fairly transparent.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains two sentences that efficiently convey the output structure, though minor repetition could be trimmed. It earns its place.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description explains the return structure (papers with flags, tooling, funder panel) adequately. The 'limit' parameter is not explained, which is a minor gap, but overall it is complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so description must add meaning. The description provides usage hints for the 'topic' parameter (short, AND-ed terms) but does not explain 'limit' at all. This partial compensation yields a score of 3.

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 returns 'impact-ranked replication targets' in a research field, specifying the output includes papers flagged OPEN or VERIFIED, plus tooling and a funder-context panel. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_independent_software and replication_status.

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 advises to 'Keep topic short (2-3 words)' and explains that 'OpenAIRE free-text terms are AND-ed', which provides parameter-specific guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice relative to sibling tools, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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