google_scholar

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

No annotations provided, and description lacks behavioral details such as authentication, rate limits, or output format. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned, and description does not disclose operational constraints.

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?

Description is concise with front-loaded purpose, sample prompts, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and an output schema, description adequately explains parameters. Lacks usage context like when to prefer this over other search tools, but overall sufficient.

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?

Since schema has 0% description coverage, description adds meaning by explaining query and num_results (default, max). However, could include more detail on query syntax or accepted formats.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches Google Scholar for academic papers, citations, and research. It distinguishes from sibling tools like general 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?

Sample prompts illustrate typical usage, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., google_search, google_books). No when-not-to-use advice.

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