Search OpenAlex (open access)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key operational trait: OpenAlex and its OA PDFs are reachable by automated clients, unlike Cloudflare-walled PhilArchive. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only search API the accessibility note is valuable and beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then context, then specific flag guidance. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, differentiation, and key flags, and hints at output through 'OA PDFs it points to.' With no output schema, a bit more detail about the return shape would help, but the tool is a search and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline applies. The description repeats the meaning of philosophy_only and open_access_only but adds no additional syntax, defaults, or parameter interrelationships beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search papers via OpenAlex with open-access full-text discovery.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with Semantic Scholar and PhilArchive, making its unique role obvious.

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 context for when to choose OpenAlex: it complements Semantic Scholar and is reachable by automated clients unlike PhilArchive. It also directs the agent to use philosophy_only and open_access_only, though it stops short of explicitly naming which sibling tool to use instead in which scenario.

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