workspace_search_external_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' and does not explain whether the tool queries external services, records results, has rate limits, or has side effects such as creating a search record.

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 with no filler or redundant wording. However, it is concise at the expense of substance, so it does not earn the highest rating.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded group of related reference-resolution tools, one clause is far too thin. An agent cannot infer return values, behavioral effects, preconditions, or how this tool fits into a broader workflow.

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 was expected to compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only weakly hints at the meaning of 'blocked_id' and 'providers'; refresh, max_candidates, resolver_version, and paper_id remain semantically 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('scholarly metadata providers'), and a target ('blocked external reference'). This makes the core purpose understandable, but it does not distinguish the tool from closely related siblings such as workspace_resolve_external_reference or workspace_list_external_reference_searches.

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, no stated preconditions, and no definition of what makes a reference 'blocked.' The phrase implies a search context but leaves the exact triggering situation to inference.

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