paper_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool finds the 'single best' match, but does not disclose behavior on no match, multiple near-matches, or any other edge cases. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context. Every word contributes value. No 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and usage guidance adequately but lacks details on return behavior (e.g., null on no match) and matching algorithm specifics. It's minimally acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No examples or clarifications 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?

Description explicitly states the tool finds the single best paper matching a given title string. It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'paper', and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'paper_search' (keyword search) by emphasizing exact title matching.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Useful for resolving a known paper title to its Semantic Scholar ID and metadata. More precise than keyword search when you know the exact title.' This tells when to use it and contrasts with an alternative (keyword search). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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