search_publications

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden; it makes clear this is a read-oriented lookup over specific fields, but says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs. ranked), result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior. An output schema exists, so return shape is partly covered elsewhere.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope followed by examples; nothing is padding. The stray '(JSON)' tag is the only minor noise.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema handling return values, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the lack of sibling differentiation and matching behavior keeps it short of full completeness.

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% and the single parameter is only named 'query', but the description compensates by stating which fields are searched and supplying concrete example values, which is meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb (keyword-search) and resource (publications) and states the searched fields (titles, summaries, venues), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_publications, which an agent must disambiguate between.

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?

Example queries ('deepfake', 'federated', 'vision transformer') imply the tool is for topical lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_publications or get_publication, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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