Search INSPIRE literature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating safe reads from a dynamic source. The description adds 'bounded' and 'model-oriented result detail', which suggest pagination/limits and configurable output detail, but these terms are vague. It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 reflects the marginal context added beyond the structured fields.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Search INSPIRE literature') and adds a compact qualifier. Every word contributes to the overall meaning, even if the qualifier is somewhat opaque.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify query semantics, pagination bounds, sorting options, or when to choose this over other literature tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the description still lacks essential context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description itself adds no explicit parameter explanations. Schema coverage is 60% (query, page, page_size have descriptions; sort and detail only have enums). The phrase 'model-oriented result detail' loosely implies the detail parameter but isn't definitive. Since schema covers the main parameters and enum values are self-descriptive, 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 'Search INSPIRE literature' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'bounded, model-oriented result detail' which hints at unique behavior. The name and title alone already distinguish it from sibling search_authors, get_literature, etc., so the purpose is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_literature, list_literature_references, or export_literature. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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