search_eric

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds context about Solr-style query syntax (with a concrete example), row limits (1-100), and start-offset pagination. It omits information on authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but provides meaningful operational detail.

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 brief, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and uses a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content.

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?

The combination of a clear purpose, parameter semantics, and an output schema covers most of what an agent needs. It does not explicitly relate to sibling tools like get_eric_record for retrieving full records, but the core search behavior is adequately described for its moderate complexity.

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?

All three parameters receive semantic explanations beyond the schema: query is described as a free-text Solr-style search with an example, rows is given a numeric range, and start is defined as a pagination offset. Schema coverage is 0%, so this description-level coverage is essential and well done.

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 opening verb 'Search' plus the specific resource 'ERIC database (education research literature)' clearly identifies the tool's function. The reference to api.ies.ed.gov and the explicit database name distinguish it from sibling search tools for other scholarly databases.

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?

The description establishes a clear use case: searching ERIC for education research literature, which implies when to select this tool over Crossref, Semantic Scholar, or OpenAlex. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it misses the top bar for explicit guidance.

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