openalex_search_works

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no mention of result ranking, pagination limits beyond the schema's own per_page text, rate limits, or what happens on an empty/no-match query. It contributes no behavioral context the structured fields don't already give.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than crisp.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage and safety annotations, a minimal description is close to sufficient, and no output schema means return values needn't be explained. However, given the dense field of sibling search tools and no output schema, the description should at least characterize result shape or scope to be complete.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The phrase 'by keyword' loosely confirms that query is a free-text term rather than a structured filter, but adds no syntax, field qualifier, or sorting guidance.

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 ('scholarly works') against a named provider (OpenAlex), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish this from closely related siblings such as crossref_search_works, arxiv_search, dblp_search_publications, or openalex_get_work, so an agent gets no help choosing between 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many other scholarly search tools in the sibling list, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'keyword search', which the agent could infer from the name alone.

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