search_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral traits: parallel execution across sources and de-duplication by DOI or title. However, it does not disclose response shape, failure behavior, rate-limit implications, or how the list of searched sources is determined when the 'sources' parameter is omitted.

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. Every word contributes to the core meaning: searching, all sources, parallel execution, and duplicate merging by DOI/title. It is appropriately concise for its high-level message.

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 the large sibling set and 6 parameters, the description provides only a high-level overview. It does not define the sources parameter, explain filtering limits, describe the merged result format, or advise when to prefer individual source-specific tools. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool with correct parameter values.

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 for entirely undocumented parameters. The description only vaguely implies the 'query' parameter through 'Search', and it completely fails to explain 'sources', 'year_from', 'year_to', 'tech_only', or 'limit_per_source'. For a 6-parameter tool, this is a critical gap.

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 identifies the action ('Search all journal sources'), the resource ('all journal sources'), and a distinctive behavior ('merge duplicate results by DOI/title'). It differentiates this tool from source-specific siblings like search_scopus and search_arxiv by emphasizing parallel aggregation across all sources.

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 phrase 'all journal sources in parallel' implies the intended use case: a broad cross-source search rather than a single-source query using search_scopus or search_arxiv. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the individual source-specific tools, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback scenarios.

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