Scholarly — Search across academic databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the simultaneous cross-source search but gives no detail on behavior differences vs single-source siblings, such as result deduplication, aggregation format, or whether the combined results are merged/interleaved. For a tool that spans two databases with differing schemas, the merged result behavior is a significant unknown.

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?

Single focused sentence that establishes the combined-source nature efficiently. It's appropriately short and front-loaded with the key differentiator. Could add a bit of usage guidance without breaking conciseness, but what's there earns its place.

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 13 parameters (all optional), no annotations, and no output schema, the description carries substantial burden. The combined-search behavioral implications across two differently-schema'd databases are not explained. The description is adequate for orienting an agent to the tool's purpose but leaves unanswered questions about result merging, deduplication, and source-specific behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by clarifying that includeCrossref and includeOpenAlex flags control which databases join the simultaneous search, and that maxResultsPerSource applies per database (as evidenced by 'per source' in its schema description). However, the description doesn't clarify interactions between recently added parameters like summaryMode vs full detailed results beyond what schema says.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Search simultaneously across OpenAlex and Crossref for academic publications.' This clearly differentiates from siblings like scholarly_openalex_search_works and scholarly_crossref_search_works by establishing it's a combined search. Sibling books_search_across_all has a similar pattern but this description explicitly names both sources, making the purpose clear.

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 implies use when wanting results from both OpenAlex and Crossref simultaneously, which differentiates from the single-source siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you only want one source, or when you need a DOI lookup like scholarly_crossref_get_by_doi). The combination purpose is clear but exclusions aren't spelled out.

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