campus_research_search_databases

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it returns per-database results or explicit access errors rather than failing wholesale, and it preserves provenance, which tells the agent to expect partial failures and per-source attribution.

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 operation stated first and the parameter rules next; every line carries information. Only the closing Crossref-prefix fact feels mildly tangential for an agent that will not control the prefix.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguity (date range semantics) and the failure mode, but omits provider selection behavior and limitPerProvider meaning. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the semantics and mutual exclusivity of the year parameters ('inclusive', 'calendar years ending now', do not combine). It says nothing about query constraints, providers selection, or limitPerProvider, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

It names a specific verb (Search) and names the exact resources (ACM publications, Scopus, Web of Science), which differentiates it from the generic campus_research_search and campus_research_google_scholar siblings. The trailing sentence about Crossref prefix 10.1145 muddies rather than sharpens the scope, since the tool claims to search ACM directly while also routing through Crossref.

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 real selection guidance between two mutually exclusive date parameterizations (yearFrom/yearTo vs recentYears) and warns against the 'assume three years' default. However it never says when to pick this tool over campus_research_search, campus_research_google_scholar, or campus_research_search_index, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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