search_openalex

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states 'Search' and documents parameters, but does not mention behavior such as API key requirements, pagination, rate limits, error handling, or whether results are read-only. The examples imply functionality but do not explicitly disclose side effects or state changes.

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 well-structured with an Args list, each parameter explained concisely and with practical examples. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence contributes value, and the examples aid understanding without unnecessary verbosity.

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's simplicity (a search with four parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. All parameters are documented with examples, and the output schema presumably describes return values. The main gap is the lack of usage context relative to sibling tools, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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 zero description coverage, leaving the description as the sole source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains each parameter (query, rows, filter, sort) with examples and defaults, going far beyond the bare schema. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear, specific statement: 'Search OpenAlex for scholarly works across all disciplines.' This identifies the action (search), resource (OpenAlex), and scope (scholarly works), and inherently distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_crossref and search_eric which target different 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 provides detailed parameter-level guidance (e.g., filter and sort examples) but offers no direction on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools like search_semantic_scholar or search_crossref. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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