campus_research_google_scholar

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond those: dependency on SERPAPI_API_KEY, unverified output, fallback to a labeled manual search link, and non-official Google status. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 four concise sentences, each contributing a distinct fact: what the tool searches, the third-party dependency, the unverified nature of results, and the fallback/authority status. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only, idempotent annotations and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the main behavioral risks: key dependency, unverified output, and no-key degradation to a link. It is slightly incomplete about output shape and pagination/date-range behavior, but the schema defaults and parameter names reduce the practical impact.

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 only 20%, so the description carries the burden for explaining parameters, but it only addresses mode/link behavior and the presence of an API key. It does not explain query semantics, pagination with page, or the yearFrom/yearTo date-range parameters, leaving most parameters under-documented.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Google Scholar', and immediately identifies the third-party SerpApi integration. Naming Google Scholar makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like campus_research_search and campus_research_search_databases, and the closing 'Not an official Google API' removes ambiguity.

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?

It conveys an important usage nuance by stating results are 'discovery candidates requiring independent verification, not certified sources,' which implies this is for discovery rather than authoritative verification. It also explains the no-key and mode=link fallback behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the verification/citation sibling tools or say when to prefer one over the other.

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