search_scholar_meta

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral characteristics, such as 'No API key required' (lowering barriers) and specifying the coverage of publishers. It also implies the tool returns DOI, citation count, publication date, and abstract, which is useful but somewhat redundant with the output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes key differentiators (coverage of publishers, returns fields, no API key). It is structured well for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool is relatively simple with two parameters, both documented, and it has an output schema that presumably describes return fields. The description covers the key aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and the fact that no API key is required. It could mention pagination or result formats, but given the output schema likely handles that, the description is reasonably complete. The comparison to arXiv adds helpful context.

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 50%: both query and max_results have descriptions, but they are minimal ('Search query' and default/max/min values). The description does not add much detail on what constitutes a good query or how max_results affects results. However, it does mention typical query types (e.g., searching for scholarly metadata) and implies that max_results controls result count. Given the schema already handles the basics, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a search on Crossref for scholarly metadata across multiple named publishers. It specifies the resource (Crossref) and the purpose (searching scholarly metadata), which differentiates it from siblings like search_web and search_wikipedia. The mention of 'peer-reviewed papers that arXiv may not' further distinguishes it from potential academic search tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool, such as when searching for scholarly metadata with DOIs, citation counts, and abstracts. It notes that it covers peer-reviewed papers that arXiv may not, implying a comparison with other academic sources. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like search_academic, which could be more explicit. Still, the context is useful enough.

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