export_literature

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that export is user-initiated rather than automatic and that it is the sanctioned path for keeping records, which is meaningful context, but it says nothing about how results are delivered (file vs inline), whether exports are persisted, permissions, or any size limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and supported formats. The phrase "outside the process" is slightly vague, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description omits the information an agent most needs: how to choose between briefId, searchId, and recordIds, and what the export returns. What is present covers intent well but not invocation.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It echoes the format enum but leaves briefId, searchId, recordIds (and the 200-item cap) and includeAbstract entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess which selector to use.

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 and resource (exporting a search result set) and enumerates the three output formats, which is more than enough to understand what the tool does. It does not contrast itself with record-reading siblings such as get_literature_records or save_screening, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

"Export is user-initiated and is the intended way to retain WoS/Scopus records outside the process" gives a real usage signal: call it when the user wants persistent copies of records. However, no alternative is named, no when-not guidance is offered, and it is unclear whether recordIds or a searchId should be supplied for different retention scenarios.

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