free_science_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it provides no information on side effects, prerequisites, rate limits, or output behavior. The 'safe_search' and other parameters are unexplained.

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 short but fails to front-load a clear purpose. It is essentially a parameter list without an introductory sentence explaining the tool's function, wasting the opportunity for clarity.

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 5 parameters, zero annotations, and an output schema that is not leveraged, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's main function, leaving the agent without critical context to decide when and how to use it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief Chinese explanations for each parameter (e.g., '搜索查询' for query), adding some meaning beyond the empty schema titles. However, explanations are minimal and some are vague.

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 lacks an explicit statement of what the tool does beyond the name 'free_science_search'. The docstring only lists parameters in Chinese and English with no verb or resource definition, making it unclear that it performs scientific searches.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like free_general_search or free_image_search. There are no exclusion criteria or context for usage.

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