Research Paper Recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, external-facing read. The description adds that results come from Semantic Scholar's recommendation engine, but says nothing about rate limits, API key/auth requirements, or result ordering — modest added value beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence (mechanism) earns its place by telling the agent what engine backs the results, though it borders on redundancy with the tool name.

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 the two params are fully schema-documented. However, for a tool whose selection depends on distinguishing it from other research_paper_* siblings, the absence of any usage context leaves a real gap.

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 both parameters (seed_paper_ids, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description only says recommendations are 'based on seed papers', adding no syntax, ID format, or limit interplay beyond the schema.

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 (get) and resource (paper recommendations) with the mechanism (Semantic Scholar recommendation engine based on seed papers). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like research_paper_search and research_paper_citations, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 you need seed papers but gives no guidance on when to choose this over research_paper_search, research_paper_citations, or knowledge_related. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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