Google Scholar Search

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful rate-limit warning and fallback to an RSS-based tool, but does not say whether results are cached, how blocking manifests, or what the response includes despite having an output schema. It adds context but not rich operational detail.

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 compact list: purpose first, then parameter notes, then rate-limit caution. It is well front-loaded with no filler sentences, though the 'lihat google_web_search' reference is slightly opaque and parameter lines are terse.

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 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description should at least name the missing parameters or their intent. It adds the rate-limit fallback and covers two parameters, but leaves the remaining five untouched, which is thin for a tool with an open-world, network-heavy behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains only 'start' (0-based offset) and 'engine' (auto|http|proxy|browser) and gives a default for neither. It omits 'query', 'hl', 'num', 'year_low', 'year_high' entirely, so five of seven parameters are left undocumented.

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 names the resource (Google Scholar) and enumerates what is returned (papers, authors/venue, citations, PDF links), so an agent understands what it does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like google_web_search or google_scholar_cited_by; a scholar-specific sibling is not addressed.

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 usage context is only implied by the mention of 'start' for pagination and 'when the result is blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool.' There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over google_web_search or google_scholar_cited_by.

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