radar

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

Discloses output details: papers with flags OPEN/VERIFIED, abstract (markup stripped), and independent reusable tooling. It also mentions impact-ranking. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers behavioral traits, though it does not mention side effects or auth requirements.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value. No redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then elaborates efficiently.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains what is returned and gives usage guidance. It lacks explicit details on limit parameter behavior and the nature of the 'independent reusable tooling,' but is largely complete.

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 add meaning. It provides usage advice for `topic` (keep short, terms AND-ed) but does not explicitly define `limit` beyond its default. The description adds partial value but leaves some parameter semantics implicit.

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 it returns 'Impact-ranked replication targets in a research field,' specifying that it returns high-impact OpenAIRE papers with OPEN/VERIFIED flags, abstracts, and tooling. 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?

Provides clear advice: 'Keep `topic` short (2-3 words); OpenAIRE free-text terms are AND-ed.' This guides on parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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