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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: result entry shape varies by source, academic fields like authors and citations are optional, latency is about 3 seconds, and the returned id should be kept for a related tool. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 most important purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, followed by return-shape warnings and routing advice. It is somewhat dense and includes an extra latency estimate, but every sentence still contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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 what the tool returns, how the result shape varies, which siblings to prefer in which situation, and how the returned id should be used. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, nothing call-critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions and constraints. The description adds the transport detail that parameters go in the query string and flags query as required, which is useful but only modest extra meaning beyond the 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 web and academic sources together and is aimed at questions straddling both domains. It names the specific resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like post_scholar_search_web and post_scholar_search_scholar.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when you do not know in advance which source kind will answer, and directs users to the more predictable single-source siblings when they do know. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative routing guidance.

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