search_works_in_venue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the search action and parameter roles but does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits, response format, or rate limits. Since the schema covers parameters well, and the description adds the venue identification workflow, a score of 3 is appropriate for minimally adequate 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 two sentences: the first defines the action, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded. No redundant or vague phrasing; ideal conciseness.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema) and numerous siblings, the description covers the core purpose and usage guidance well. It lacks hints about the output format or field selections, which would make it fully complete for an agent relying solely on this description.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing venue parameters ('identify the venue first') but does not enhance understanding of other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline without exceeding.

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 searches for papers in a specific journal or conference, and positions it as the primary tool for restricting to credible venues. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('works in a venue'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_authors or search_sources.

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 explicit guidance: identify the venue first via check_venue_quality or search_sources, then use name, ISSN, or ID. This sets clear context for appropriate use. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, which would strengthen guidance against using this tool for unverified or non-venue queries.

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