kaken_search_researchers

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

With no annotations, description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a search operation returning affiliation, position, and URL, implying read-only behavior. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or pagination details (though parameters hint at pagination). Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. First sentence states purpose and resource, second provides search fields and output. No extraneous information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and retrieved fields. It could mention pagination or result limits more explicitly, but the start and rw parameters imply this. Overall complete enough for effective use.

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 75%, so many parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by grouping search fields (name, number, institution, field) but does not significantly expand on parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it searches researchers from KAKEN database, lists retrieved fields (affiliation, position, URL), and specifies use cases (identifying specific researcher or listing by institution/field). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle projects or grants.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (identifying specific researcher or listing by institution/field). However, it does not mention when not to use or provide direct comparison with sibling tools, though context is clear.

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