google_scholar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Search' without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, rate limits, or the format of returned results. For a mutating side-effect free search tool this is a modest gap, but without annotations it is a clear shortfall.

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 two sentences, tightly written, and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second adds usage context. Every sentence contributes, and there is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description clearly communicates purpose and usage but omits any explanation of return values, pagination, or configuration behavior. For a simple search tool this is functionally adequate, but it leaves room for more contextual guidance, hence a 3 rather than a higher score.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, each with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning (it doesn't reference query, num, or limit), but since the schema already documents them, no penalty is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search Google Scholar for academic papers, citations and authors.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like google_search or google_news by narrowing the domain to academic content and explicitly naming the resource. The mention of 'peer-reviewed sources' further reinforces its unique niche.

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, 'Use this for research questions where peer-reviewed sources matter,' gives clear guidance on when to employ the tool. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions, though the sibling context (e.g., google_search) makes the comparison implicit. Thus it earns a 4, not a 5.

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