search-google-scholar

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 disclosure. While it indicates this is a search operation (implying read-only behavior), it doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or potential limitations of Google Scholar. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., article metadata, links, abstracts), any limitations (e.g., result count, sorting options), or how it differs from sibling search tools. For a search tool in a server with multiple similar tools, more context is needed to guide proper selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'Academic topic or research query to search for'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of valid queries, formatting tips, or scope clarifications). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search for academic research articles using Google Scholar'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('academic research articles'), and platform ('Google Scholar'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-medical-journals' or 'search-medical-literature', which appear to serve similar search functions in related domains.

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 doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools that might be more appropriate for medical-related searches (e.g., 'search-medical-journals' or 'search-medical-literature'). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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