search_with_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses a real constraint not present in the schema ('max_results is capped at 100 here') and describes the result categorization into four lists, which tells the agent how to interpret the response. It still omits error behavior, whether access lookups are rate-limited or slow, and any explicit read-only statement.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then gives the cap and return shape efficiently. No filler, though the cap sentence sits between purpose and returns rather than at the end.

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?

Because there is no output schema, describing the returned fields and the four categorization lists is necessary and is provided. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the missing semantics for sort/date_from/date_to leave an agent guessing about filtering behavior.

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% for five parameters, and the description only adds meaning for max_results (the 100 cap). The sort, date_from, and date_to parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a PubMed search') plus the distinguishing value-add ('report for every hit whether a legal open-access PDF exists or the paper looks paywalled'). This differentiates it from plain search siblings, though it never names pubmed_search or search_pubmed as the alternative to pick when access status is not needed.

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 context is only implied: the user picks this tool when they want OA status alongside search results, and the description mentions search_pubmed as the source of the shared return fields. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like search_pubmed or check_access, so the agent must infer the routing.

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