oa_search_works

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral traits: stemming and full-text matching, a loose count (matching_mode full_text_stemmed), and the conservative CJK-title handling that avoids guessing a language. It also warns that high breadth is expected and that filters narrow the set exactly. This materially informs how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded paragraphs deliver purpose, scope, and behavioral caveats with no filler. The first sentence alone gives enough to route the call; each subsequent sentence adds unique context.

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?

With safety covered by annotations and returns covered by an output schema, the description provides the remaining operational knowledge: matching semantics, count looseness, and exactness of filters. For a search tool of this complexity, nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 description mentions filters for year, author, institution, source, and open-access status and states they narrow results exactly, which adds a little beyond bare parameter names. However, query, pagination, sort, and ID format details are left to the schema (which already documents them). The description doesn't fully compensate for any schema-description gap, but the addition of the exact filtering behavior warrants a middle score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search OpenAlex for scholarly works') and enumerates the covered document types (articles, books, datasets, theses). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like oa_get_work (single-work lookup) and oa_search_authors/oa_search_sources, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 implies usage for query-based scholarly search and explains the effect of filters, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives. It does not state when to prefer oa_author_works or oa_cited_by instead, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance. This leaves usage routing to inference rather than explicit direction.

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