search_academic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it performs a search but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the search results look like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with just two brief phrases, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language. The Korean translation adds precision without bloating the text.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't explain what results to expect, how they're structured, or important behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing output and behavioral context.

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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value. The Korean text doesn't clarify parameters further.

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 action ('Perform a search') and target resource ('on Naver Academic'), with the Korean translation adding specificity. It distinguishes this tool from most siblings (e.g., search_blog, search_news) by specifying the academic domain, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible search tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when academic searches are appropriate compared to other search tools (like search_webkr or search_news) or the datalab_* tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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