campus_research_search

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

With annotations already marking the operation as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful context: returned content categories, possible API-key requirements, and a correctness caveat about indexing. It does not specify rate limits or failure behavior when a key is unavailable, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Four short sentences each carry independent value: what is searched, what is returned, the authentication caveat, and the verification warning. The main purpose is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a seven-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level picture: providers, return categories, key dependency, and verification caveat. It lacks exact output structure, rate-limit or failure behavior, and deeper parameter semantics, leaving enough gaps that an agent may need to infer or probe.

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 description maps the provider enum values to human-readable names and, by mentioning pagination, gives some meaning to page and limit. However, schema description coverage is only 14% and the description does not elaborate on query matching, year-filter semantics, or pagination behavior, so compensation for the low coverage is incomplete.

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 that the tool searches academic publications and names five concrete providers, so an agent knows the operation and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling campus_research_search_databases, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 conveys when the tool is relevant: literature searching in the named providers. It adds practical caveats about API keys and the need to verify before citing, but it never states exclusions or alternatives, so an agent cannot tell whether to prefer this over campus_research_search_databases or a verification tool.

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