推荐学术平台

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

无注解，描述承担行为披露责任。它披露了返回形式（按优先级排序的平台列表及其特点），但未提及可能的失败情况、输出格式限制或额外行为。基本透明但不深入。

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?

单句描述，信息完整，无冗余内容，且结果输出形式在开头前置。

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?

该工具功能相对简单且存在输出 schema，描述提及输入依据和返回列表形式，足以提供基本使用概念。但缺少参数细节、使用边界和替代工具对比，整体完整度中等。

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 描述覆盖率为 0%，描述需要补偿参数语义。'查询意图和学科领域'大致对应 query 和 field，但未说明具体参数名、field 枚举值如何影响推荐结果，也没有说明 query 的用法，语义贡献有限。

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?

描述以明确的动词 '推荐' 指向特定资源 '学术搜索平台'，并说明基于查询意图和学科领域，与兄弟工具 search_papers（搜索论文）、download_paper（下载）、read_paper（阅读）清晰区分。

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?

描述隐含了使用场景（需要推荐平台时），但没有明确说明何时应使用本工具而不是 search_papers 等替代工具，也没有给出排除条件。从名称和兄弟工具可推断，但描述本身未提供直接指导。

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