Search all matching scientific figure Providers

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it opens the candidate App as a side effect and hands control back to the user, and it discloses a default-scope exclusion policy (Community frozen, Working/Capture/flat-v1 excluded). This is real context an annotator cannot express, though return format and result-set behavior are still unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, but the first sentence is a long accumulative list of internal jargon ('Local Published, FigureYa, bundled Open Figure Modules, flat-v1') that taxes parsing. Nothing is obviously redundant, but the density sacrifices readability for compactness.

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?

This is a complex 11-parameter search with no output schema and near-zero parameter documentation, so the description must do far more than it does. It omits return-value shape, pagination/limit behavior, the meaning of the enum filters, and how it relates to the many sibling preview/confirm/plan tools, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 9% schema description coverage (only resultSetId is documented), the description carries the compensation burden and does not deliver: query, limit, assetKind, codeStatus, plotFamily, dataProfile, providerIds, reviewStatus, and visualProfile are never explained in the description or schema. The only hint is the loose reference to 'filters' via the result-set/caching prose, which is not tied to any named parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Provider match set') and enumerates the provider scopes included (Local Published, FigureYa, bundled Open Figure Modules, opted-in personal). It is jargon-dense but conveys what the tool searches, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling search_page or explain why a caller would pick one over the other.

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?

It provides workflow guidance ('open the candidate App, then stop and wait for the user to choose') and states exclusions (Community frozen, Working/Capture/flat-v1 excluded from default search), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like figure_library_search_page or figure_library_preview, so selection remains partly inferred.

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