search_crossref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the database scope (CrossRef as a scholarly infrastructure with persistent identifiers) and default/max values for max_results, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior that would help an agent use it effectively.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, database context, Args with parameter details, and Returns. Some sentences could be tighter (e.g., the CrossRef explanation is slightly verbose), but overall it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters and the database context. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. It could improve by adding behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, but it's largely complete for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters with examples (e.g., query examples, default:10 max:1000 for max_results, filter syntax example, sort options). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.

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 academic papers from the CrossRef database, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'). It distinguishes from download/read siblings by focusing on search, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search_* tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed beyond the database source.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling search tools (search_arxiv, search_pubmed, etc.), the description doesn't explain when CrossRef search is preferable (e.g., for DOI-based metadata, interdisciplinary coverage) or when other databases might be better suited for specific domains.

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