search_works

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses FTS5 index usage and query syntax, but does not mention potential file-writing side effects via save_path or output format behavior. Enough for a safe search operation but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, directly front-loads the search purpose, then adds FTS5 details. No filler, 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?

Covers core search functionality but omits guidance on save_path behavior, output formats, or pagination beyond schema descriptions. Given no annotations, a bit more would help, but schema is thorough.

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%, but baseline is 3. The description adds FTS5 boolean operators and exact phrase support to the query parameter, going beyond schema examples. Other parameters remain standard.

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 clearly states the tool searches academic works by title, abstract, or authors, and differentiates from sibling search_by_doi by focusing on full-text FTS5 search. Includes specific query syntax, making it a distinctive search tool.

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?

Description implies use for keyword-based full-text search with FTS syntax, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like search_by_doi or cache_query for exact lookups. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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