academic_search

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds behavioral details: 'Returns structured JSON, with recovery hints when nothing matches' and 'Results stay fresh for 1 hour.' It also clarifies provider behavior by noting 'scholarapi is paid/full-text and only used when explicitly requested — never by automatic selection,' providing transparency about fetching and costs.

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 concise, roughly five sentences, and clearly structured: it states the core function, lists output contents, provides usage scenarios and exclusions, and mentions output format and freshness. It avoids redundancy and is well-organized.

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 provides sufficient context for practical use: it mentions output format, pairing with scrape_page, freshness, and recovery hints. Combined with the comprehensive schema and annotations, the tool is fully specified for an agent 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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds useful context: it mentions narrowing by 'year, source, or access type' which corresponds to parameters, and highlights the 'pair with scrape_page' for full-text access, complementing the schema. However, it doesn't delve into each parameter individually, so the value added is moderate.

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's function: 'Search peer-reviewed papers and scholarly literature' and explicitly differentiates from siblings: 'use web_search for non-academic content or news_search for current events.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other search tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Reach for this for literature reviews, prior-art research, and finding citations' and when to use alternatives, making it clear when to select this over web_search or news_search. It also suggests pairing with scrape_page for full text, which is actionable.

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