search_members

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, so the description needs only to add complementary context. It does so by stating what the search returns ('id + primary name'), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not detail pagination behavior or result ordering, but the return format disclosure is valuable and nonredundant.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and primary return field. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to construct a query, what filters are available, how pagination works, or the significance of 'raw'. It also does not mention the relationship to get_member for fetching full member details, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides zero explanation of what any parameter means. Terms like 'raw', 'filter', 'cursor', and 'offset' are left entirely to the agent's inference. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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's purpose: 'Search Crossref members (publishers/societies).' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Crossref members'), and further clarifies scope with 'publishers/societies.' It also distinguishes from sibling search tools by naming the target entity type and explicitly stating the return shape ('id + primary name'), making it unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for searching Crossref members, as opposed to journals or funders. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_member, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The guidance is present only through the resource name, not through direct recommendation.

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