openalex_work_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (title/year/citations/authors/venue) and implies a read-only keyword search, but it does not describe sorting, pagination, result-count behavior, or coverage limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear action, examples, return fields, and purpose in two short sentences. The bilingual duplication adds length but is useful for a multilingual user base and does not introduce unnecessary noise.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to call it: query examples, returned fields, and purpose. The main gaps are lack of sibling-selection guidance and no explicit mention of max_results behavior, but these are not critical for a basic search invocation.

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%, and the input schema only provides property titles. The description enriches the query parameter with concrete examples ('CRISPR gene editing', 'organ-on-chip'), but max_results is only inferable from its name and default value, not explained in the description.

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 action and resource: 'Search OpenAlex scholarly works' and lists the returned fields (title/year/citations/authors/venue). It is specific enough to distinguish itself from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with other literature-search siblings like pubmed_search or europepmc_search.

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 gives clear usage context: input topics or keywords, examples, and a stated purpose of literature review and citation analysis. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over the many alternative literature/database search siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions where another tool would be preferable.

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