search_ieee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: a hard cap of 200 records per request and a caveat that results may include metadata outside the caller's institutional subscription, which matters for access expectations. It still omits how to retrieve results beyond 200 records and says nothing about error or rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences with zero filler: the auth requirement and result-volume/coverage limits are front-loaded. Every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.

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 auth, record limits, and subscription caveats, which is solid for a seven-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. It remains incomplete in leaving out what a record actually contains (for example, whether abstracts are included like the full-text query expects) and how to page beyond the 200-record ceiling.

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%, so all seven parameters, including enum and range constraints, are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the 200-record per-request limit reinforces maxResults but adds no new syntax, defaults, or combination semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search IEEE Xplore metadata and abstracts.' That is clear enough for an agent to know it queries IEEE content. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the many sibling search tools (search_scopus, search_crossref, search_semantic_scholar, etc.), so it falls short of a 5.

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 only explicit usage guidance is the prerequisite 'requires IEEE_XPLORE_API_KEY', which tells the agent about an auth requirement but not when to choose this tool over the other literature search siblings. The IEEE-domain name implies it's the tool for IEEE-indexed papers, but the description gives no guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or overlap with other sources.

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