Pubmed Semantic Scholar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the two operational modes and the kind of analysis available, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior, and 'deep analysis' is left vague.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by mode routing. No filler, though the second sentence mostly mirrors information already present in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all four parameters are schema-documented. The description covers both modes adequately; only the absence of any behavioral caveats keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter and its modes, establishing a baseline of 3. The description largely restates the schema's mode semantics and paper_id hints without adding new format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search or analyze papers via Semantic Scholar API') and names the analytical outputs (citations, influence, references). The Semantic Scholar branding implicitly distinguishes it from pubmed_search and pubmed_europepmc_search, but the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection guidance: use search_mode='search' for keyword work and 'paper' with an identifier for deep analysis. It lacks any exclusion or routing advice relative to the many sibling search/analysis tools, so the agent must infer when this source is preferable.

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