search_openalex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states scope; it does not mention rate limits, result shape, pagination, or how query, year filters, and tech_only affect execution. There is nothing to prepare the agent for side effects or response structure.

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?

Four words is concise, but this is under-specification rather than efficiency. The sentence contains no information beyond the tool name and therefore does not earn its place as a functional description.

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?

For a search tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is far from complete. The agent cannot determine what a successful call returns, how results are limited, or how the search behaves in the wider toolset.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (query, count, year_to, tech_only, year_from), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that burden.

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 'Search openalex only' essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what OpenAlex is or what kind of content is searched. It names a resource but adds no detail about results (papers, authors, venues), leaving the purpose vague beyond the name itself.

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 word 'only' hints at a single-source search but provides no guidance about when to choose OpenAlex over sibling tools like search_scopus, search_arxiv, or search_all. No context, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given.

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