search_dois

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'streamed' but does not explain what that means for the caller (e.g., streaming results, partial scans, or memory implications). There is no mention of side effects, rate limits, or result format. For a search tool with no safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then lists filter categories. It is easy to scan and quickly understand the core 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?

Given the tool has 13 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not provide enough context to use the tool effectively without additional exploration. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks guidance on parameter semantics, usage scenarios, and behavioral nuances.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does mention some filters (funder, subject, year, geo) but does not cover important parameters like 'max_scan', 'max_results', 'client_id', 'has_orcid', 'has_funder', 'has_license', and 'resource_type_general'. The mapping of 'title/DOI/description' to the 'query' parameter is implied but not explicit. Many parameters remain unexplained.

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 function: searching streamed JSONL with filters. It names several filter dimensions (title/DOI/description, funder, subject, year, geo), making the operation concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'get_doi', but the 'streamed JSONL' context and the search verb give reasonable differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like 'export_search_results' or 'facets'. The description implies a search use case but provides no decision framework.

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