search_literature

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description adds the non-obvious mechanics: de-duplication by DOI/title and ranking by cross-source agreement. It also discloses the side effect that `country` silently restricts to OpenAlex only, which a caller could not infer from the schema. No rate limits or latency expectations are given, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the headline capability, then dedup/ranking behavior, then per-parameter constraints; every line carries information and there is no filler. Minor cost: the parameter lines with inline backticks read as terse fragments rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the federated-search mechanics are well covered. The remaining gap is the four undocumented parameters against a 0%-coverage schema, which for a 7-parameter tool leaves an agent guessing on date-range and open-access semantics.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it documents only three of seven: the five valid `sources` values, `country` as two letters plus its OpenAlex-only effect, and `limit`'s 1-50 range. `query`, `year_from`, `year_to`, and `open_access_only` are left entirely to their self-explanatory names, so compensation is partial.

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?

Opens with a specific verb (Search) and enumerates the exact resource set (OpenAlex, Crossref, Europe PMC, PubMed, arXiv at once), which immediately separates it from the single-source sibling search_pubmed. An agent can pick this for a broad federated query without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: `sources` narrows the federation, `country` implicitly switches to OpenAlex-only, and `limit` is bounded 1-50. It never states when to prefer a sibling like search_pubmed or search_clinical_trials, so it stops short of the explicit alternatives/exclusions a 5 requires.

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