boj_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Academic research' and lists operations, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication needs (implied by the 'authenticate' operation in the schema), rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns (since there's no output schema). This is inadequate for a tool with multiple operations and no structured safety hints.

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 very concise—a single phrase listing key operations. It's front-loaded with the domain ('Academic research') and wastes no words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating operations with commas or bullet points). Every word contributes to the purpose, making it efficient.

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 (multiple operations via the 'operation' parameter, nested 'params' object, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to use the operations, what inputs are needed for each, or what to expect in return. With no annotations and rich input schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (operation, api_key, params) with descriptions and an enum for operation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing some operation types (e.g., 'search papers, citations, references, authors'), but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Academic research — search papers, citations, references, authors', which specifies the domain (academic research) and the main operations (search, citations, references, authors). It distinguishes from most sibling tools which are focused on browser automation, cloud services, GitHub/GitLab operations, and other domains, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential research tools that might exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists operations but doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), when to choose specific operations, or how it compares to other tools in the sibling list (e.g., if there are overlapping functionalities). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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