search_academic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention that the tool aggregates results from multiple providers, as indicated by the num_results description ('per provider') and the max_total_results cap. This is important for an agent to understand the merging behavior, yet the description omits it.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks critical detail about aggregation and usage. It could include a brief phrase about multiple providers and the result-cap behavior without becoming verbose. As is, it is under-specified, not efficiently structured.

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 tool's complexity (multi-provider aggregation) and absence of annotations/output schema, the description should explain the merging behavior, the role of num_results and max_total_results, and guidance on when to use it. It fails to do so, leaving agents to infer critical behavior. Incomplete for a search tool with these parameters.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the term 'reference sources' which implies academic scope but doesn't add meaning beyond that. Since the schema fully covers definitions, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it searches academic and reference sources for research workflows, which is clear for academic context but doesn't differentiate from other search tools like search_web, search_google, or search_github. It lacks the specificity of listing the kinds of sources or the aggregation behavior that would distinguish it from the siblings.

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 for research workflows but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over search_web or search_google, nor when to avoid it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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