profile_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it doesn't note that this performs a network fetch against Google Scholar, whether results are paginated, or how missing/private profiles behave.

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 single imperative purpose line is front-loaded, and the Args block is tight and scannable. The Returns stanza ('Dict: 论文列表') is dead weight since a full output schema exists, but otherwise there is no padding.

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?

With zero schema descriptions across five parameters and no annotation gaps filled in the prose, the description leaves the date-range filters entirely invisible to an agent. For a tool in a namespace full of paper-search siblings, it also gives no routing signal, so it is not complete enough to drive correct selection on its own.

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 0%, and the description compensates well for three of five parameters, most importantly by enumerating the accepted sort_by values (relevance/citations/date/title) that the schema leaves as an unconstrained string. But year_start and year_end are never mentioned, so two filtering parameters remain completely undocumented anywhere.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource (retrieve a scholar's papers), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from crowded siblings such as scholar_search, search_papers, or paper_detail — the profile_url argument is the only implicit signal that this operates on one author's page.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool. The agent must infer from the profile_url parameter alone that this is the right call for listing an author's publication list versus searching across papers.

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