mek_search_simple

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions AND logic and wildcards, but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. No redundant information, and all sentences are necessary.

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 description covers parameter usage but lacks information about the output format or structure (no output schema). Pagination behavior is partially described but total results or maximum are not mentioned. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is provided.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides full parameter details: examples for creator, clarification that title can be partial, page_size allowed values (10,50,100), and page being 1-based. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states it searches MEK bibliographic metadata, calling it 'simple search', which implies basic functionality. It lists the supported fields, but does not contrast with sibling tools like mek_search_advanced or mek_search_fulltext, limiting 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?

The description explains that fields are combined with AND logic, wildcards are supported, and at least one of the main four fields must be provided. However, it does not specify when to use simple search versus the other search tools.

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