academic_patent_research_citation_intelligence

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers little beyond the topic: nothing on result ordering, deduplication across the four databases, rate limits, whether PDFs come back as links or text, or what happens when a source fails. The only behavioral hint is 'open-access PDFs', which implies returned fields but does not guarantee them.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with zero filler. It reads slightly like a keyword list, but every item maps to something the tool actually returns or searches.

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 four-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain how results from OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Crossref, and arXiv are combined or ranked, and whether citation-velocity data is always available. None of that appears, and the missing patent scope from the name compounds the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains query, minYear, sources, and maxResults. The description adds no syntax guidance (e.g., how 'sources' interacts with availability, or whether citation velocity requires a specific backend), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') plus concrete resources ('peer-reviewed scientific papers', 'citation velocity', 'DOI metadata', 'open-access PDFs') and names the four backends. An agent can tell it is a scholarly-literature search tool. It misses a 5 because the tool name advertises 'patent research' yet the description never mentions patents, leaving a scope mismatch an agent could trip over.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing implies general literature discovery, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over another approach, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With no closely related siblings in the list, the absence of routing guidance is less damaging, but no explicit 'use this when...' clause is present.

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