CrossRef Works Search

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing no-auth-required, CC0 metadata licensing, and the API source (api.crossref.org), plus a concrete list of returned fields. No contradiction with 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?

Four compact sentences with no filler: what it searches, what it returns, how it differs from a sibling, and data/license/auth context. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema covers return fields, annotations cover safety, and the description adds purpose, an alternative, data source, license, and auth. It's complete for a simple 2-parameter search tool, though it omits potential rate-limit or pagination notes.

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?

The schema describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), and the description reiterates the query scope ('by title, author, or full text') without adding new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.

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 verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('150M+ scholarly works'), and enumerates the fields returned (DOI, title, authors, publisher, etc.). It also explicitly contrasts with education.doi_lookup, making the tool's role 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?

It gives an explicit comparison with education.doi_lookup, stating when to use this tool (discover DOIs from a text query) versus resolving a known DOI. However, it does not address other closely related search siblings like openalex.works.search or education.papers.search, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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