search_crossref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, return format, pagination, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a search tool and offers no behavioral transparency beyond the action itself.

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 zero unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient, though it may be too brief for the tool's complexity, but as a concise statement it scores well.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what results look like, how the year/tech filters work, or any limitations. An agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool correctly beyond the basic search intent.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter (query, count, year_from, year_to, tech_only) is already documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning to these parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 without any enhancement.

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 action 'Search' and the resource 'Crossref', which gives a definite purpose. The word 'only' hints at exclusivity but does not name alternative tools or specify what kind of search is performed, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling search tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'crossref only' implies it is for Crossref-specific searches, but it does not state when to prefer it over search_all, search_scopus, or other siblings, nor does it give any exclusions or context.

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