search_publications

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds context about Crossref's strengths/weaknesses and result details, without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, returns, limitations, and parameters. It is informative without excessive verbosity, though could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, returns, limitations, parameter hints, and relationship to sibling tools. Annotations provide safety context, and output schema is noted. Complete for an agent.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0% per context, the schema actually includes descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value for the query parameter by explaining Crossref's coverage and suggesting alternatives, going beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Durchsucht die internationale Forschungsliteratur über Crossref (bibliografisch)' and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning its weakness for CH education literature and suggesting alternatives.

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 explicitly advises when not to use (for CH education literature) and recommends `swisscovery_search` or `oa_law_search`. It also explains how to use the results with `resolve_doi` and swisscovery, providing clear usage guidance.

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