Academic Paper Search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: caching for 30 minutes, list of academic sources, and features like citations and PDF links, which go beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 headings (When to use, Features, etc.) and is concise at around 80 words, covering key points without verbosity. Slightly more could be trimmed, but it's effective.

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?

The description covers use cases, features, sources, and caching; with an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values. It is complete for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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?

Since input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, the description adds no further parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains each parameter well.

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 it searches academic papers using Google Custom Search API. It distinguishes itself from siblings like google_search and patent_search by specifying academic sources and use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'When to use' section explicitly lists appropriate contexts like peer-reviewed research and literature reviews. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings, so it lacks full guidance on exclusions.

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