export_search_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: results are exported to a CSV file under the exports/ directory. However, it omits important details such as whether the file is overwritten, how the output path is named, whether any special permissions are required, and what the function returns (though an output schema exists). This is partially transparent but not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence that states the action, target, and output. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and contains no extraneous words. This is appropriately concise for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: parameter meanings are unexplained, the relationship between query/max_scan/max_results is unclear, and there is no mention of file overwriting behavior, what 'summaries' includes, or potential side effects. Given four optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too minimal to be considered complete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, max_scan, client_id, max_results). While 'query' and 'max_results' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'max_scan' and 'client_id' remain ambiguous, and the description does not even hint at how they relate to the search/export behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 specifies a concrete action: 'Search DOIs and export matching summaries to CSV under exports/.' It names the resource (DOIs), the verb (search and export), and the output format/location (CSV under exports/). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_dois (which likely does not export) and export_funder_issues/export_health_issues (which export specific issue types).

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 gives a clear context: use this when you want to search DOIs and produce a CSV export of summaries. It implies this is the tool for file-export tasks rather than in-memory search results, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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