research_paper_recommendations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specificity by naming 'Semantic Scholar's recommendation engine', but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or error handling. Minimal added value.

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 main purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 the complexity of a recommendation tool, the description covers the source and basic logic. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Could mention what happens with invalid seed paper IDs, but overall adequate.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It briefly mentions 'seed papers' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the action 'get paper recommendations' and the resource 'based on seed papers', using 'Semantic Scholar's recommendation engine'. It distinguishes from siblings like research_paper_search and research_paper_details.

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 implies usage when seed paper IDs are available, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives like knowledge_related or research_paper_search. No exclusions or context provided.

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