search_researchers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core read-only action and the parameter limit range (1–25), but does not mention output structure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple search tool this is minimally acceptable, but not thorough.

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 very concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args block. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param), and the description covers all parameters plus the affiliation scoping nuance. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required in the description. It lacks minor details like search case-sensitivity, but these are likely implicit or covered by the output schema.

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 zero descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the description compensates fully with explicit Args explanations: 'Researcher name or partial name', 'Optional OpenAlex institution ID', and 'Number of researchers from 1 to 25'. This adds meaning well beyond the schema titles.

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 tool 'find researchers by name' with optional affiliation scoping. The verb 'find' and resource 'researchers' are specific, and the mention of 'by name' naturally distinguishes it from siblings like find_topic_researchers. No ambiguity.

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 implies usage by name but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as find_topic_researchers or search_research. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided; usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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