search_preprints

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It mentions relevance/ngram sorting but fails to mention rate limits, result format, pagination, or destructive nature. 'Search' implies read-only but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence packs purpose, sources, and field scopes without redundancy. Could be slightly clearer by splitting metadata vs. behavior, but remains efficient.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits critical details: pagination, ordering, result structure, error handling. Incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning to 'field' (scopes) and 'source' (Europe PMC, OpenAlex). But 'limit' and 'query' lack explanation; query syntax, case sensitivity, or formatting not described.

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 it searches preprint full text, specifies two relevance methods (Europe PMC, OpenAlex n-gram), and lists field scopes. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_fulltext or get_metadata.

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 provides context for search (preprint full text) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fulltext or resolve, nor any exclusions.

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