search_literature

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it is retrieval-only (never generates or summarizes), costs $0.02 via x402, requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY and USDC on Base, and returns real cited passages ranked by relevance. This is transparent about cost, authenticity, and prerequisites.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose immediately. Each sentence adds distinct value: scope, output, and cost/authentication. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a search tool: what it searches, what it returns, cost, and required credentials. It lacks details about search behavior (e.g., stemming, matching) but compensates with strong purpose and transparency. Given the simple schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete.

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% for both parameters (query and limit). The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as query syntax or behavior for varying limits, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'full-text search across the entire indexed public-domain corpus.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the full-text nature and the 'PREMIUM' aspect, likely different from search_books which may search metadata. The scope and output (passages with citations) are 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 usage for full-text retrieval but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_books. It provides context (premium, full-text, cost) but no exclusions or alternative references, so guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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