search_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists parameters and their filter effects, but it does not state what the tool returns, how results are ordered (e.g., relevance, date), whether it is a read-only operation, or any potential side effects or rate limits. The behavior beyond 'search' is largely opaque.

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 two components: a one-sentence purpose statement and a compact argument list. Every element serves a function; there is no filler or redundant phrasing. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter definitions are easy to scan and parse.

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 covers all parameters and the basic purpose, which is a good foundation. However, it lacks any indication of output shape (though an output schema exists), sorting behavior, or how this search relates to the search_authors sibling. These are relatively minor gaps for a search tool, but they prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides clear explanations for each parameter, including value ranges for limit, format examples for year, and a comma-separated example for fields_of_study. This goes well beyond the typed schema, making the tool safely callable.

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's first sentence, 'Search for academic papers on Semantic Scholar,' clearly identifies the specific action (search) and resource (academic papers). It naturally distinguishes this from siblings like get_paper (retrieves a specific paper), get_citations (retrieves citations), and search_authors (searches for authors). The argument list further clarifies the intended scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_paper should be used when a paper ID is already known, or that recommend_papers serves a different discovery purpose. The only implicit guidance is the verb 'search,' which is insufficient for an agent to make reliable routing decisions among multiple search-related siblings.

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