kci_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: API key requirement, rejection of queries missing title, the 100-row cap, and the response asymmetry where omitted author keywords/ISSN/UCI produce an empty list that must not be interpreted as 'no keywords'. This is exactly the failure-mode disclosure that prevents an agent from confidently misinferring on empty data.

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?

Three paragraphs follow a logical progression (purpose → constraints/workflow → caveats), with every sentence carrying operational information and the purpose front-loaded in the first clause. It is dense rather than padded, though the subject-led workflow explanation could arguably be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the critical constraints and the key response quirk well. It is incomplete mainly because seven filter parameters get no semantics anywhere, and the response asymmetry is disclosed narratively rather than per-field. The presence of an output schema mitigates the return-value gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for title (mandatory), date_from/date_to (YYYYMM format), rows (API cap 100), and keyword (accepted as a search field but absent from the response). However, 7 of the 12 parameters — doi, page, author, journal, abstract, affiliation, institution — remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 sentence 'Search KCI articles (REST, requires KCI_API_KEY)' names a specific verb, resource, and transport/auth context in one line. It also differentiates from the kci_article sibling by explicitly assigning per-record field recovery (keywords, ISSN, UCI) to that tool rather than this one.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: title is mandatory and the API rejects queries without it, so a subject-led search must be run as both a title query and a keyword query with the results unioned by hand. It also states an explicit alternative — use kci_article to recover keywords/ISSN/UCI — telling the agent exactly when this tool's output is insufficient.

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