search_works

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return structure (dictionary with total_results and works list), the row limit (1-50), and the requirement for at least one query parameter. This goes beyond the minimal description, although it doesn't discuss potential errors or side effects (though 'Search' implies read-only).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a concise one-sentence summary, a necessary constraint note, a tight argument list, and a clear returns section. No wasted words or 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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, parameter semantics, required input conditions, and return format. It references get_work_by_doi for the shape of result items, which is sufficient given the output schema exists. The description is complete and self-contained.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: query (free-text across all fields), title (restrict to title), author (restrict to author names), and rows (number of results with range and default). It also clarifies that at least one of query/title/author must be provided, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 begins with 'Search Crossref for works by free text, title, and/or author,' which clearly states the action (search) and resource (Crossref works). It also specifies the search facets, distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_work_by_doi, which retrieves a single work by DOI.

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 when to use the tool ('Search Crossref for works'), and the constraint 'At least one of query, title, or author must be provided' gives a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as contrasting with get_work_by_doi when a DOI is known.

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