find-scholar-id

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: required API keys (SERPAPI_API_KEY/SEARCHAPI_API_KEY), the paid-service cost model, and the critical caveat that the first result is not identity proof. That caveat is exactly the kind of reliability signal an agent needs.

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?

Three compact sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact: capability/legacy status, return-shape caveat, and auth requirement. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations plus the description cover safety, auth, and result trustworthiness. What remains missing is what the 'query' input should contain and how this differs concretely from sibling resolvers, which for a discovery tool is a real gap.

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 single required parameter 'query' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what belongs in it (author name, paper title, affiliation). With one undocumented param, the definition does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: discovering Google Scholar cluster IDs, with the qualifier 'legacy' and the paid provider (SerpAPI/SearchApi). An agent can distinguish it from generic search siblings like search-papers or resolve-paper, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

'Legacy' implies this is a fallback, which hints at when-not-to-use, but no sibling is named and no explicit condition selects this tool over find-open-access or resolve-paper. Usage must be inferred.

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