ask_research_question

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses the tool searches CORE API and returns abstracts/snippets, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, error handling, or what happens with no results.

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, no waste, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, method, and result format reasonably. Output schema likely details return structure. Minor gaps like behavioral limitations prevent a 5.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool answers research questions using Open Access papers, with evidence from abstracts and snippets. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., search_articles for raw lists) by emphasizing synthesis.

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?

Accurately recommends use for literature review and evidence-based answers, but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives like search_articles for raw retrieval.

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