search_crossref

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and lists parameters; it does not describe output format, pagination behavior, access constraints, or any side effects. The term 'Search' implies read-only but adds little beyond that.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list. Every line adds value, with no repetition of schema details or filler. The most important information (what the tool does) is 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (per context signals) and the params are well described, the description is adequate for constructing basic calls. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., when to prefer this tool, result characteristics). For a moderately complex search tool with no annotations, this is a minimal but not comprehensive description.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the description compensates fully. It explains every parameter: query (free-text keywords), rows (range 1-100), filter (CrossRef filter string with example), and sort (allowed fields with examples). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema types/defaults.

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's verb and resource: 'Search CrossRef for scholarly works (articles, books, proceedings, etc.)'. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools (e.g., search_eric, search_openalex) by naming the specific database.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when Crossref is preferred over ERIC, Semantic Scholar, or OpenAlex, nor does it state any exclusions or context for choosing this tool.

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