scholar_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool searches Google Scholar, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what specific data is returned beyond 'paper abstracts'. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific about the dictionary structure. Every sentence adds value.

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 search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context and output details. The 'Returns' section is vague ('Dict: 包含论文列表的字典'), leaving uncertainty about the response format. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. It explains all 6 parameters including defaults, optional values, and for 'sort_by' provides the complete enumeration of valid options. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool searches Google Scholar and returns paper abstracts, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'adaptive_search' or 'paper_detail', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adaptive_search' or 'paper_detail'. It lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations compared to sibling tools.

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