search_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the tool queries scholarly works via OpenAlex and offers open-access filtering, which implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's non-destructive, mention rate limits, pagination, or what happens with no results. The description adds some context about the data source but stops short of full transparency.

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 a single clear sentence followed by a compact, alphabetically listed parameter breakdown. No fluff or redundancy; every line contributes value. The purpose is front-loaded, and the args are straightforward.

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 output schema exists, the return format need not be explained. The description covers all parameters with semantics and the overall task. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives and doesn't mention any prerequisites or expected result counts, but for a simple search tool, the essential calling info is present.

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 fully explain the parameters. It does this comprehensively: topic is defined as keywords or research question, institution_id as OpenAlex institution ID, from_year/to_year as publication year bounds, open_access_only as OpenAlex open-access filter, and limit with a range of 1 to 50. This is detailed, non-obvious, and goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'scholarly works', and optional scoping to a university and date range. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like search_researchers or search_universities, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools like search_researchers or find_topic_researchers for different purposes. There is no explicit comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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