search_studies_by_doi_criteria

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions searching but doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, how results are combined (AND/OR), or any side effects. The safety or mutation behavior is unclear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with an action verb ('Use this tool to search'). Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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 zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return format, pagination, error handling, and behavior with multiple criteria or empty results. A search tool should provide more context 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains three parameters (doi_provider, doi_category, doi_value_contains) but vaguely ('DOI value patterns' is ambiguous). max_results is not mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds meaning but not enough to fully cover the gap.

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 the tool searches for studies by DOI criteria (provider, category, DOI value patterns). It specifies the resource ('studies') and the filtering dimensions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_study_doi_details, which focuses on single study DOIs.

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 says 'Use this tool to search...' and 'Perfect for finding...' but provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_study_doi_details or other search tools. No explicit conditions or exclusions are stated.

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