crossref_work_search_by_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that no API key is needed and implies a read-only search, but it omits rate limits, result limits, pagination, and query-matching behavior. The added auth note provides some value, but the description remains thin on behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the auth note adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 tool is simple, with only two parameters and no nested objects, so the description is minimally viable. However, it does not explain max_results behavior or what kind of results the agent should expect, and there is no output schema to compensate for that gap.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. 'By keyword' gives meaning to the query parameter, but max_results is entirely unaddressed beyond its raw schema definition, leaving its semantics and effect on the call undocumented.

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'), resource ('Crossref works'), and scope ('by keyword'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools across other providers like scopus_document_search_by_query and from crossref_work_detail_by_doi. The audience is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose Crossref over the many sibling search tools, nor when keyword search is appropriate versus detail lookup. 'No API key needed' is an access benefit, not a usage rule, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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