search_crossref

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions indexing 150M+ works and typical result fields. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential missing data (e.g., abstracts). For a read-only search tool, the transparency is adequate but could be more thorough.

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-organized with a main purpose, usage list, additional context, parameter details, and an example. It is front-loaded and each section adds value. Could trim the example slightly, but overall 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?

Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description provides robust context: database size, result fields, parameter usage, and an example. It explains the return format (list of dicts) and key fields. This is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'query' and 'max_results' with examples and default/max values. However, 'kwargs' is described as optional filters with examples (filter, sort, order), but the schema defines it as a required string. This mismatch may confuse agents. The description adds value but introduces potential misinterpretation.

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 the tool searches academic papers in CrossRef, distinguishing it from siblings that target specific repositories (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed). It uses specific verbs like 'search', 'find', 'verify', and explicitly mentions CrossRef as the largest DOI citation database, covering all publishers not just preprints.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section provides explicit scenarios: finding papers by DOI, searching across publishers, getting metadata, verifying DOIs. It implies alternatives exist (e.g., preprint-specific searches) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. This is clear guidance though slightly incomplete.

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