search_academic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions parallel search and deduplication, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is purely read-only. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core value proposition. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of return content (metadata, DOIs, citations, open access info). However, it omits details about pagination, result structure, or handling of large result sets. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, it is marginally sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'year filtering, field selection, and language preferences', but this directly reflects the schema fields without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 that the tool searches across 15+ academic databases in parallel and returns deduplicated papers with metadata, DOIs, citations, and open access info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_doi or search_citations, which focus on specific identifiers or reference lists.

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 the tool is for broad academic literature searches, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_by_doi or search_citations. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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