search_zenodo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'returns list of paper metadata' and mentions parameters, but does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, or scope limitations (e.g., open access only). For a read-only search, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 lines with a clear, front-loaded purpose. It uses a structured Args/Returns format that is concise and efficient, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (context signal) and only two parameters with good clarity in the description, it provides sufficient context for a simple search tool. The sibling tools indicate many similar searches, but the description covers the essential aspects. Minor improvement would be noting that it only searches Zenodo metadata.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it explains 'query' as a search query string with an example, and 'max_results' as a maximum count with a default value. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though not fully detailed.

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 'Search academic papers from Zenodo open repository,' specifying the action (search), resource (Zenodo), and content type (academic papers). It distinguishes from siblings like search_arxiv or download_zenodo by naming the specific repository.

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 searching Zenodo but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like read_zenodo_paper or download_zenodo. Sibling tools include many search functions, but there is no contrasting language or usage context.

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