search_google_scholar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that results are 'List of paper metadata in dictionary format.' It omits details about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects—critical for an external API call.

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 concise (four lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a structured Args/Returns format that is easy to parse. However, the Args section largely duplicates schema information, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

The tool is a simple search with two parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description covers core functionality but lacks details on error handling, empty results, or rate limits. For a tool with many siblings, more context would aid selection.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds example values for query and explains max_results as 'Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10).' While helpful, it does not specify constraints like allowed length, encoding, or range for max_results, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Search academic papers from Google Scholar,' which clearly states the verb (search), resource (academic papers), and specific source (Google Scholar). Among many sibling search_* tools for different sources, this uniquely identifies its target database.

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 implies use for Google Scholar searches but provides no guidance on when to choose it over siblings (e.g., search_pubmed, search_arxiv). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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