scholar_search

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 discloses the return fields (title, link, publication info, citation count, snippet), which is useful. However, it does not mention any limitations, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a read-only search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that packs the essential information: what it does (search Google Scholar), the API, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no output schema, and complete parameter schema, the description adequately covers the return values. It lists all key result fields. It could mention pagination or the year_from filter, but the schema covers those, so the description is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (query, page, year_from), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that it is a search query. The schema itself is sufficient.

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, a specific academic resource, and differentiates it from sibling tools like web_search and news_search by specifying it returns academic results with citation counts. The verb 'Search' plus resource 'Google Scholar' makes the purpose immediately clear.

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 scholarly/academic queries via the phrase 'academic results' and 'scholarly search query' in the schema. This clearly distinguishes it from general web/news/youtube searches, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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