scholar_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It usefully explains the data model by giving meaning to the access-channel codes (campus IP, CARSI SSO, open access, independent account), but it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the record shape beyond the access-channel field, or mention any constraints. It therefore adds some behavioral context but does not fully meet the burden.

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?

It consists of one compact sentence, with the resource type front-loaded and the access-channel legend appended efficiently. No word is wasted; the sentence uses telegraphic punctuation instead of more prose-like structure, which is acceptable for a reference definition.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the registry contains and how each record is labeled, and it implicitly covers the default to all databases because the schema states that default explicitly. It is nearly complete; only the read-only nature and the expected result granularity are left unstated.

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 schema has a description coverage of 100%; it fully documents the single optional 'keyword' parameter, including the '缺省全部' default. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific resource: a registry of Chinese and Western-language academic databases, with coverage categories (full-text, citation indexes, fact databases, data platforms) and access channels. However, it uses only a noun phrase and does not state an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'search'; this leaves the agent to infer what to do with the resource.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool: no prerequisites, no conditions under which another tool is better, and no exclusions. Although sibling tools such as scholar_campus and scholar_resolve_doi clearly have different roles, the description does not tell the agent which one it should choose.

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