Search Literature

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds valuable behavioral context: results are merged and de-duplicated by DOI/title, ranked to prioritize cited peer-reviewed work over zero-citation preprints, tagged with source, and include specific fields. It also notes the indexes are free and keyless. It does not cover nuances like rate limits or pagination quirks, but the added ranking and dedup detail goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose, then covering result behavior, output fields, and usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place and there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 8 parameters and multiple sibling alternatives.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, which sources are searched, how results are ranked and formatted, and how to hand off results. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. The description also gives clear cross-tool context with siblings, making it self-contained for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some framing for the `sources` parameter but largely repeats what the schema already states (e.g., source-specific scope). It does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Search the scholarly literature') with a clear resource scope (four named indexes: OpenAlex, Crossref, arXiv, OSF). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with web-search for non-academic sources. The scope, default, and result contents are precisely described, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it says to use the `sources` array to widen reach, to pass results to downstream tools (appraise-evidence, fetch-paper, export-bibliography), and directly names web-search as the alternative for open-web/grey sources beyond academia. This makes the decision boundary clear.

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