Research Paper Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/external-call profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (abstracts, citation counts, TL;DR), but says nothing about result caps, pagination, rate limits, or API-key requirements for the external Semantic Scholar call.

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 tight sentences: the action and source come first, then the return contents and filter capabilities. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety; the description covers purpose and filter scope adequately. It is only slightly short of complete for lacking any guidance on when this search is preferred over the sibling paper tools.

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%, including the year_range format and fields_of_study examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description merely restates that field-of-study, year, and open-access filtering are supported, adding no syntax or semantics 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 and resource ('Search academic papers') plus the backing source ('Semantic Scholar'), and enumerates the returned payload (metadata, abstracts, citation counts, TL;DR). This clearly separates it from siblings like research_paper_details, research_paper_citations, and research_paper_recommendations.

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 says what filters exist but never says when to choose this tool over research_paper_recommendations or research_paper_details, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'search'.

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