spraay_research_scholarly_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it costs $0.002 per call and that the data comes from Crossref (CC0), which is useful behavioral context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors like rate limits or response details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes key details (cost, read-only, parameter usage). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose, cost, and read-only nature. An output schema exists, so return values are handled. However, it lacks context on query syntax, pagination behavior, and when to prefer this tool over other search siblings. For a tool with 3 parameters and many alternatives, more guidance would be beneficial.

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 schema descriptions are trivial ('q parameter', 'rows parameter', 'offset parameter') and the tool description adds no additional meaning, only stating 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments'. With 100% schema coverage but poor descriptions, the description fails to compensate and provide useful parameter semantics.

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 'Search 150M+ works via Crossref (CC0)', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like spraay_research_papers_search by mentioning 'scholarly' and 'Crossref', but does not explicitly differentiate beyond that.

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 mentions cost ($0.002 per call) and that it's read-only, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs similar siblings like spraay_research_papers_search, spraay_research_scholarly_by_doi, etc. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative suggestion.

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