get_scholar_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope of data retrieved (full profile with specific metrics), but omits information about data sources, privacy constraints, rate limiting, or whether the profile data is cached or real-time.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that places the action verb first. It efficiently communicates the core function without redundancy, though its brevity contributes to the lack of parameter documentation.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately does not detail return values. However, with zero schema description coverage for the single required parameter, the description should have documented the scholar_id parameter to be minimally 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 coverage is 0% for the required scholar_id parameter, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's format, expected values, or how to obtain a valid scholar_id. The word 'scholar's' implies the parameter's domain but provides no semantic specification.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('scholar's full academic profile'), and lists specific data returned (publications, h-index, citations, reputation) which distinguishes it from sibling get_citations_tool. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from register_scholar_tool or other scholar-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_citations_tool for specific citation queries, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining a valid scholar_id from register_scholar_tool or other sources.

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