find-open-access

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are 'source-reported', Unpaywall enrichment is optional, and only links/licenses are returned with no full-text download.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most decision-relevant constraints (enrichment optionality, no full-text downloads). No filler.

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 documented, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a tool whose only required input is an opaque 'identifier', the definition does not specify acceptable identifier forms or what 'providers' means, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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 two parameters. The description hints that Unpaywall enrichment is optional (pointing at 'providers') but never explains what identifier formats are accepted or what the providers list controls, leaving both parameters undocumented in structured data and prose.

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 ('Find') and resource ('source-reported open-access locations'), plus the distinctive behavior of returning links and licenses rather than full texts. It is clearly distinguishable from citation-centric siblings, though it never names an alternative tool.

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 phrase 'without downloading full texts' implies the use case (locating OA copies rather than retrieving content), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to siblings like resolve-paper or search-papers.

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