scholarly_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the response. The description is limited to stating the corpora searched, omitting important operational details.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words but could benefit from clearer structure (e.g., listing parameter roles). However, it remains efficient and to the point.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the output format, pagination, or how results are returned. The agent lacks essential context to effectively use the 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?

The schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'source' has a description). The tool description adds value by naming the source options (arXiv and Wikipedia) but does not explain the 'num', 'lang', or 'query' parameters. Given low coverage, more compensation was needed.

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 specialized corpora (arXiv or Wikipedia) not covered by general web search. The verb 'Search' combined with the specific resources 'arXiv' and 'Wikipedia' provides a specific, non-tautological purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search.

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 when to use this tool ('missing from general web search') and explicitly lists the two sources as alternatives. It implies the context for use (scientific papers or encyclopedic content) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria, leaving minor ambiguity.

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