Google Scholar Search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning the search implementation options (browser, SearchApi primary, fallback), caching TTL, and a max result limit. It does not contradict annotations, but could disclose failure modes or rate limit behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds value: the search method, return fields, caching, and result limit. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With an output schema present, the return fields are already documented. The description covers additional context like caching and fallback behavior. Missing details include potential error handling or performance implications, but overall it is sufficient for a search tool.

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 no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as the max limit and query operator support.

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 the tool searches Google Scholar and lists specific return fields (title, authors, publication, year, snippet, citation count, links). The name and description distinguish it from general search siblings like 'search' and 'search_parallel' by focusing on academic/scholarly content.

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 indicates it's for Google Scholar searches, which implies when to use it over general search tools. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not scenarios, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance required for a 5.

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