dblp_search_publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (e.g., result format, pagination, ranking) but does not contradict it, so a minimum-adequate 3 is fair.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately short for a simple search tool, though terseness contributes to the missing usage/scope detail.

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 two-parameter search with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any hint of return structure or scope boundaries, which would help an agent distinguish it from adjacent scholarly search tools.

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 coverage is 100%, with query and max_results both described in the schema (including default 10 and max 30). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('DBLP ... publications'), so the agent knows it retrieves CS publication records. However it does not differentiate from close siblings like dblp_search_authors or arxiv_search/openalex_search_works, leaving the agent to infer scope.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as dblp_search_authors or other scholarly search tools. Usage is only loosely implied by the verb.

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