intel_openalex_materiaux

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions open access indication but lacks details on auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Some transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, concise and front-loaded with key functionality. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains function adequately for a search tool. It mentions open access indication but omits return value details. Overall sufficient for the complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, restating filtering and sorting options. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enrich parameter meaning.

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 it is for advanced search of peer-reviewed articles in materials science on OpenAlex, specifying filtering by country and sorting options. It distinguishes itself from a simpler search tool, fulfilling the specific verb+resource criterion.

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 explicitly mentions when to use advanced search and provides an alternative for simple search ('utiliser le tool de recherche OpenAlex standard'). It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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