openaire_research_product_search_by_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does meaningful work: it states no API key is required, flags a known intermittent HTTP 403, and advises that a network error may not be a tool bug. It omits obvious read-only/rate-limit details, but the operational caveat is valuable.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: core purpose, authentication requirement, and known-error caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter search tool, it covers purpose, auth, and error behavior, but it leaves gaps: no statement of return shape, no guidance on result limits, and no sibling comparison. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 must define both parameters. It provides only the phrase 'by keyword,' which maps to query, but says nothing about max_results' semantics, limits, or behavior. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Search OpenAIRE (European open science aggregator) for research products by keyword.' It is clear what the tool searches over, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search-by-query tools from other providers, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 provided about when to choose this tool over sibling aggregator searches (Scopus, arXiv, CORE, etc.). The description only implies usage by keyword and notes API-key-free access; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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