find_review_articles

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool finds reviews but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result limits. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences: first defines the tool's core function, second adds context and an optional feature. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the overall purpose and a key configuration option (journal restriction). It lacks details on return format or pagination, but given the straightforward nature of search tools, it is nearly complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the purpose of reviews and mentioning optional journal restriction, which complements the schema. The description does not repeat schema details but provides context.

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 finds review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, and explains their value as high-quality citations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_works' (general works) and 'find_seminal_papers' (landmark papers).

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 context for when to use the tool (to establish context in top papers) and hints at optional journal restriction. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives like 'search_works'.

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