findWorks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but description goes further: states 'No download' (a behavioral trait not implied by read-only), explains return format (ranked candidates with fields), clarifies empty vs error semantics, and instructs to pass the handle unchanged to fetch. This is rich context beyond annotations, though not exhaustive (e.g., no rate limiting or auth notes).

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?

Description is moderately long but dense with essential info. It opens with purpose, gives a call example, then details output, error handling, and alternative. Each sentence adds value; no redundancy. Slightly verbose but well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully explains what is returned (ranked candidates with title, authors, year, kind, access) and how to use the fetch handle. It covers error semantics, empty results, and alternative routes. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, this is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 (query and limit both have descriptions). The description adds value by explicitly defining query as a title or bibliographic query and explaining the output's relationship to the query (ranked candidates with fetch handle). The limit parameter is adequately described in schema, so no extra needed. Overall, description complements schema effectively.

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?

Description states a specific verb (Finds) and resource (scholarly papers and books) with examples of acceptable queries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search for general web queries and from fetch for retrieving documents. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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?

Provides explicit call example, explains when to use this tool vs search, and gives guidance on error handling (retry or fetch exact identifier). Also clarifies the workflow: findWorks returns fetch handles to be passed to fetch. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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