search_articles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior: author matching uses only article frontmatter, supports full names, surname-first initials and ORCID, and flags surname-only results as ambiguous. This is useful context beyond structured fields, though it says nothing about rate limits or result ordering.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by routing guidance and the key caveat. No filler, though the phrasing 'article-only structured bibliography fields' is slightly jargon-heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with seven parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most input semantics unexplained, making it only adequately complete for a multi-field search tool.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only explains the author parameter's accepted formats and leaves doi, pmid, pmcid, year, title, and limit undocumented, adding little beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search article-only structured bibliography fields') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_notes. An agent can tell this is the bibliography-focused search tool 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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of search_notes when asking for papers by an author, giving a clear alternative and selecting condition. It does not cover when to use it for non-author fields like DOI or year, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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