OpenAlex — 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, but it discloses nothing beyond the search capability. It doesn't state whether results are read-only (implied by 'search' but not stated), rate-limit implications, that results are paginated, or what happens with the summaryMode/formatAsText switches. For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should describe the result shape and any side effects.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a search tool whose parameters are well-documented in the schema. Being too long would not help here.

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?

Despite high schema coverage, the tool has 18 parameters with zero annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain what a 'simplified result' (summaryMode default true) versus full detail looks like, how the query/filter system works together, or what the response format is. For a complex, high-parameter search tool, this description under-delivers on context that the schema can't provide.

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%, so per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides — all 18 parameters (filter, search, sort, publicationYear, etc.) are self-explanatory in the schema. Since coverage is complete, no compensation is needed, but the description also adds no extra nuance or interaction guidance (e.g., how search and filter combine).

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 'Search OpenAlex works with advanced filtering options for scholarly literature' clearly states the verb (search), resource (OpenAlex works), and general capability. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling scholarly_crossref_search_works or scholarly_search_across_all, both of which also search scholarly literature, so the distinguishing purpose is unclear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like scholarly_crossref_search_works, scholarly_openalex_get_work, or scholarly_search_across_all. There's no mention of when a general search vs. filter-driven search is appropriate, or when the OpenAlex database should be preferred. The 'advanced users' note on the filter param implies some exclusions but doesn't articulate them.

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