search_springer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the same API key works for both API modes, which is useful behavioral context about authentication. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the response format looks like, leaving significant gaps for a search tool with 8 parameters.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral context about API modes and authentication. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and API behavior. However, it lacks details about response format, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the openAccess parameter's effect on API selection, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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 the tool searches academic papers from Springer Nature database, specifying both the action (search) and resource (academic papers). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the Springer Nature database specifically, unlike other search tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed that target different sources.

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 provides clear context about when to use different API modes (Metadata API vs OpenAccess API based on openAccess parameter), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling search tools like search_google_scholar or search_scopus, missing explicit alternatives guidance.

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