Scholar Feed MCP Server

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. It mentions that similarity is 'updated daily', which adds useful context about data freshness, but fails to describe other key behaviors such as response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core purpose and adds a brief methodological note. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., response format, error handling), usage guidelines, and does not compensate for the absence of an output schema. For a similarity search tool with moderate complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'bibliographic coupling + embedding similarity' relates to the parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Find papers similar to a given paper') and resource ('papers'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_papers' or 'get_paper' by focusing on similarity rather than general search or retrieval. It also mentions the methodology ('bibliographic coupling + embedding similarity') which further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 like 'search_papers' or 'get_paper'. It mentions the methodology but does not specify scenarios where similarity search is preferred over keyword-based search or other sibling tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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