academic_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the upstream sources and the shape of the result (citation counts, reconstructed abstracts, authors, Open-Access PDF links); it stops short of noting limits or rate behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and sources first, return payload second, with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete because it enumerates the returned fields. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination/limit behavior context and any source-selection semantics.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates the domain of the query but adds no syntax, format, or filtering nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (queries) and concrete resources (OpenAlex and arXiv for peer-reviewed papers and preprints), plus what it returns. Against siblings like social_search, github_intel, and web_extract, an agent can immediately tell this is the scholarly-literature tool without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'Deep scientific & academic research tool' implies the domain in which to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling search tools. Usage is only implied.

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