crossref_search_works

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of result relevance, rate limits, or whether results are ranked — but it also contradicts nothing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

A simple two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool whose annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, though it omits what the result list contains (e.g., titles, DOIs, author counts) or how many fields come back per hit.

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 100%: 'query' and 'rows' (with default 5, max 20) are both documented in the schema. The description only restates the three searchable field types already implied by the query parameter, adding no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (academic papers on Crossref) plus the searchable fields. The Crossref provider name implicitly distinguishes it from sibling scholarly search tools like openalex_search_works, arxiv_search, or dblp_search_publications, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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 verb and the listed search fields imply when to use it (broad paper lookup by title/author/keyword), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to crossref_get_work for fetching a known DOI or to the competing scholarly search siblings.

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