ops_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 100-record cap and that constituent can be biblio or abstract, but says nothing about authentication/registration requirements, rate limits, or what the start/end paging does at the boundaries.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the operation and scope come first, followed by example queries and then the constituent/limit constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the examples could be trimmed without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The essential CQL semantics, constituent options, and the 100-record limit are covered, but pagination parameters and the relationship to sibling search tools remain gaps for a 4-parameter search endpoint.

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 explains 'cql' richly via examples and clarifies 'constituent' (biblio vs abstract), but the 'start' and 'end' parameters are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific operation (EPO OPS CQL search) and its scope (global bibliographic data), and the concrete CQL examples make the resource unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbours such as gpss_search or ops_biblio, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied through the CQL syntax examples ('ti=battery and pa=tsmc', 'ipc=H01M10 and pd within ...'), which show the intended query style but never state when this tool should be chosen over siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing.

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