doe_publications

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

With readOnlyHint=true already signaling a safe read operation, the description adds useful scope context (covers national labs and universities). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, default limits, or the structure of returned results, which would help set agent expectations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and immediately conveys what the tool does, what it covers, and its filter capabilities. No extraneous information.

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 search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview but does not explain result formats, pagination behavior, or default values. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of a description for return structure leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists filter categories (keyword, author, title, subject, date range) that map to the schema properties but does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as format details for date parameters or behavioral nuances of the query.

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 searches for DOE-funded scientific publications and technical reports, with a specific scope (national labs and universities). This uniquely identifies it among sibling tools like pubmed_search and nih_search_publications, making the resource and scope explicit.

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 use when searching for DOE-funded research, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives. It provides context that distinguishes it from other publication search tools, but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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