google_scholar_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains cursor-based pagination, token precedence, credit mention, and the linkage to other tools. Could further disclose rate limits or limitations but is sufficient for basic transparency.

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 informative but slightly verbose with bracketed notes. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be streamlined by integrating the pagination note into the main flow.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides a clear return structure and pagination details. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand usage, though an explicit return format table would improve it.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by noting that 'mauthors' supports query helpers like 'label:', and that 'after_author' takes precedence over 'before_author'. The pagination token retrieval note adds value beyond the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('searches') and resource ('academic researcher profiles on Google Scholar by author name'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like google_scholar_author and google_scholar_author_citation by noting that its author_id is used as input to those endpoints.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating that the author_id feeds into google_scholar_author and google_scholar_author_citation endpoints, and explains pagination tokens. However, it does not explicitly contrast with google_scholar (which searches articles) or provide exclusion criteria.

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