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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description presents a non-destructive search that returns an id and results and says nothing about destructive side effects. This directly contradicts the safety profile encoded in annotations, so the score is 1 and the contradiction flag is set.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded: purpose, parameter placement warning, return fields, timing, usage guidance, and sibling routing. The embedded pricing footnote is extraneous and adds length, but overall the structure is efficient and each main sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not strictly required, though the description helpfully summarizes key fields. It covers alternatives, timing, and follow-up id handling, but it leaves a serious behavioral gap by omitting any mention of the destructive/non-readOnly annotation. For a tool whose annotations contradict its apparent search behavior, the description is not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful invocation detail absent from the schema: parameters go in the query string, not a body, and it groups the year-bound parameters as as_ylo/as_yhi. That extra transport guidance raises the score to 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search academic literature') and distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming general web search and the mixed-mode alternative. An agent can tell this is the scholarly-article search tool without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('peer-reviewed sources or when citation counts matter') and when-not guidance ('current events and product pages a general engine is better: post_tavily_search'). It also routes combined scholarly/web needs to post_scholar_search_mixed and follow-up explanation to post_scholar_search_explain.

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