CrossRef Member/Publisher Search

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'no auth required' and the underlying data source (CrossRef REST API). It also discloses the shape of results, which helps an agent understand what the call will produce. No contradictions found.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool searches, what it returns, why it is useful, and data/auth context. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 this is a simple read-only search tool with 2 parameters, full schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: resource scope, result contents, practical purpose, data source, and auth expectation. No meaningful gap remains.

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%, with both 'query' and 'rows' already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the 'by name' interpretation of the query parameter but does not add significant new parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already carries the parameter 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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the CrossRef member registry of 17K+ registered publishers and societies'), and the output contents (member ID, name, location, DOI prefixes, coverage counts). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like crossref.works.search, crossref.journals.lookup, and crossref.funders.search by focusing on the member registry.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'identifying a publisher's CrossRef member ID or checking publication volume.' This gives an agent clear context for when the tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use-case framing is strong enough to guide selection.

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