Search articles

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: DOI lookup returns exactly one paper while keyword search returns one page, and metadata is available for comparison before download. It does not cover pagination limits or auth, but the annotations lower the bar.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then result cardinality, then a workflow tip. No filler; every sentence 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the two retrieval modes and result cardinality, and hints at available metadata. It omits detail about what metadata fields are returned or how pagination interacts with keyword search, but the rich input schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including DOI/URL forms for query and pagination defaults. The description's mention of DOI including DOI URLs repeats the schema without adding new semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (find/search), resource (paper, journal articles), and two distinct modes (DOI lookup vs keyword search). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools: journal articles/paper vs books, and 'before downloading' points to the download tools. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly explains the two usage modes and their differing result cardinality (one paper vs one page), and suggests comparing metadata before downloading. However, it does not explicitly name article_download or state when to prefer this over book_search, leaving that inference to the agent.

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