search_publications

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the operation safe, the description adds useful behavioral context: filtering to open access or file-only deposits, a row maximum of 100, pagination via start, portal case sensitivity, and default sort behavior. It does not describe error or rate behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose line, followed by a compact Args block where each parameter gets one terse, informative line. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary nuance; every sentence earns its place given the tool's 10 parameters.

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 search tool with 10 parameters, zero schema-level parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It documents all parameter semantics, defaults, limits, pagination, and filtering behavior, while the readOnlyHint and output schema cover safety and return structure.

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 carries the full parameter-documentation burden. It explains every one of the 10 parameters with concrete meaning, inclusive year ranges, accepted doc_type values, sort options, max rows, pagination offset, and portal case conventions. This goes well beyond the bare schema names and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Recherche des publications dans l'archive ouverte HAL.' This clearly identifies the tool as a publication search on HAL and distinguishes it from structure or reference search siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from get_publication or explain that it returns multiple results rather than one record.

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 detailed parameter list implies the tool is used for criteria-based publication search, but the description does not state when to prefer it over siblings such as search_references or get_publication. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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