Look up ids in CERIF XML

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the search behavior, input forms (string file), and output (XPath), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention how errors or conflicting xml/file inputs are handled.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes relevant input examples and output details (XPath). Every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary repetition or 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 has 4 parameters and no output schema; the description covers the core purpose, input types, and output type (XPath). However, it does not specify behavior when both xml and file are given, nor describe the return structure in detail beyond 'with XPath'. This leaves some edge-case ambiguity, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for the query parameter (ORCID, project ID, DOI) and clarifying that matching is against id element text. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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's function: searching a CERIF document for id elements matching a query and returning XPaths. It uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('CERIF document'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on id lookup rather than validation, extraction, or entity management.

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 mentions a use case ('useful for cross-referencing links') but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of siblings like validate_xml or analyze_document. Usage is implied but not contrasted with alternatives, so the guidance is only partial.

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