search_sources

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes sorting by h-index descending and return fields (h-index, impact metrics, OA status). Does not mention any side effects, but as a search tool, destructive behavior is unlikely. Could be improved by noting no side effects.

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?

Concise and well-structured. Front-loaded with main purpose, then adds key details about sorting and returns, and ends with usage guidelines. Each sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and sorting. No gaps in context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about sorting and return values but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what schema descriptions already provide.

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?

Clearly states 'Search for journals, conferences, and other publication sources' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_venue_quality and get_top_venues_for_field by noting differences in purpose.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use alternatives: 'Use check_venue_quality for detailed metrics on a specific venue, or get_top_venues_for_field to discover the best venues in a research area.' Provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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