Crossref — Search works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention rate limits (Crossref has notable API etiquette requirements), pagination limits beyond the schema, whether results are simplified by default, or any consequences of heavy filtering. Since summaryMode defaults true, the behavior of simplified vs detailed output isn't disclosed in the description itself.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that states purpose and key capabilities without waste. It's appropriately sized given the tool's complexity. Could arguably add a thin layer of usage context, but the sentence is well-formed and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given 22 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is fairly complete but omits guidance on which search fields are most effective together (e.g., queryTitle vs query, boosting combos), typical query construction patterns from Crossref's API, and rate-limit etiquette. For a search tool of this complexity, more usage context around effective query combinations would strengthen completeness.

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 100% (all 22 params described inline), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but given full coverage the schema does the heavy lifting. The description distinguishes 'structured query parameters' vs 'advanced filtering' (SQL filter string), which maps loosely to the params, but doesn't add meaning beyond schema notes.

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 states 'Search Crossref works with structured query parameters and advanced filtering,' which clearly identifies the verb (search) and resource (Crossref works) as well as the distinguishing feature (structured query parameters, advanced filtering). This differentiates it from siblings via the 'advanced filtering' and 'structured query parameters' framing. However, it doesn't exhaustively name subsections of what kinds of works are covered or typical use cases beyond search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like scholarly_openalex_search_works or scholarly_crossref_get_by_doi. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'advanced users' on the filter param hints at usage levels internally but doesn't help choose among sibling tools.

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