search_webofscience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auto-selection behavior of the API product tier, which is useful, but says nothing about credentials required, quota/rate-limit costs, or pagination — and the apiProduct default it explains is already fully documented in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence earns only partial credit since it largely repeats the apiProduct schema default rather than adding new guidance, but there is no padding or redundancy elsewhere.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not indicate result shape, whether results are paginated, or how expensive options like discoverAccess affect the call. The rich schema compensates for parameter documentation, but the description leaves the agent without a sense of what a call returns or costs.

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 11 parameters including enums and defaults are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-related content restates the apiProduct default, adding no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Web of Science"), which inherently distinguishes it from sibling database tools like search_scopus or search_pubmed. It does not, however, articulate what makes Web of Science distinct or when an agent should prefer it over those siblings.

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 second sentence gives implied usage guidance about the apiProduct selection being optional, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance among the many sibling search tools. An agent gets no help deciding Web of Science over Scopus, OpenAlex, or search_papers.

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