campus_research_search

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: it discloses the return shape (metadata, DOI, provenance, pagination), the auth prerequisite, and an epistemic caveat that indexing does not prove peer review. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The caveat sentence earns its place by preventing misuse, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

For a 7-parameter, low-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return payload and a key caveat but leaves several parameters (yearFrom/yearTo, limit caps, page) unexplained and does not clarify provider-specific behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 14%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It conveys that pagination and provider selection exist, and it implies year/provider-related usage, but it never explains page/limit bounds, yearFrom/yearTo semantics, or how provider choice changes results.

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 (Search) and resource (academic publications) and names concrete providers, which separates it from generic sibling tools like campus_research_search_databases or campus_research_google_scholar. However, the named providers (Crossref, OpenAlex, ACM, Scopus, Web of Science) are only a subset of the enum's 10 values, and no sibling is explicitly contrasted.

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 line about provider API keys is a useful prerequisite, and 'verify candidates before citing' implicitly routes to the verify_* siblings. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., versus campus_research_google_scholar or campus_research_search_databases), leaving selection to inference.

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