campus_research_search_databases

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful non-annotation behavior: 'Returns per-database results or explicit access errors, preserving provenance' and the ACM Crossref prefix 10.1145 detail. This discloses output/error behavior and implementation context without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, the second gives a critical parameter contract, and the third covers output/error behavior plus a useful ACM-specific detail. The most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers intended use, the date-mode contract, per-database return behavior, error occurrences, and provenance. It does not describe the result item shape or authentication prerequisites, but the sibling context and annotations fill enough 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 only 17%, but the description compensates meaningfully for the date parameters: it defines exclusive modes, inclusive ranges, the recentYears meaning, and explicitly warns against assuming a default. It also maps database names to providers and mentions per-database results, though query and limitPerProvider are left mostly to inference from the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and resource set: 'Search ACM publications, Scopus and Web of Science' plus a period scoping. That distinguishes this tool from generic siblings like campus_research_search and campus_research_google_scholar by naming exact databases and the search-time constraint.

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?

It gives explicit parameter-usage guidance: pass both yearFrom/yearTo for an inclusive range, or recentYears for calendar years ending now, with a strong 'never assume three years' warning. It does not explicitly name competing sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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