OpenAlex Research MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool does (analyze geographical distribution), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any performance characteristics. The description is functional but lacks operational transparency.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place - there's no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis output looks like (format, structure, or content), doesn't mention any limitations or constraints, and provides no context about the data source or methodology. The description covers the basic 'what' but leaves out crucial 'how' and 'what-to-expect' information.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'topic or query' which corresponds to the 'query' parameter, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter usage, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Analyze the geographical distribution of research activity for a topic or query. Shows which countries and institutions are most active.' It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (geographical distribution of research activity), and output (countries and institutions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_institutions' or 'search_by_topic' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus using 'search_institutions', 'search_by_topic', or 'analyze_topic_trends'. There's no information about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic purpose statement.

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