Google Scholar API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the basic search functionality and does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, return format, rate limits, or the purpose of specific parameters like 'cites' for citation tracking.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with absolutely no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal to fully inform an agent about response structure, pagination, or how to combine optional parameters. It only covers the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 a 100% coverage of all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, which is acceptable but not enhancing.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Search academic papers, authors and citation counts via Google Scholar.' It uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource (academic papers, authors, citation counts), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_search or google_patents.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons. The academic context is implied but not explicitly stated as a differentiator from other search tools.

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