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 filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like (list of authors with what fields?), pagination behavior beyond the 'per_page' parameter, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence establishes the main purpose and key filters, while the second adds the 'find experts' use case. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing all filter types mentioned in the schema.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (author objects with what properties?), how results are ordered, whether there's pagination beyond the 'per_page' parameter, or any limitations/constraints. For a search tool in a research context with many sibling alternatives, this leaves too many unanswered questions for effective agent 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?

The description adds some semantic context by mentioning filters for 'publication count, citations, affiliations, and more' and 'research areas', which maps to some parameters (works_count, cited_by_count, institution, and potentially query). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides complete parameter documentation including examples for numeric filters. The description doesn't add significant value beyond what's in the schema, so it 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 as searching for authors/researchers with specific filters (publication count, citations, affiliations, research areas). It uses specific verbs ('search', 'find') and identifies the resource ('authors/researchers', 'experts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_topic' or 'search_institutions', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'search_by_topic', 'search_institutions', 'get_author_works'), there's no indication of when this author-focused search is preferred over other search or retrieval tools. The description mentions 'find experts in specific research areas' but doesn't clarify if this is better than using 'search_by_topic' for that purpose.

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