search_semantic_scholar

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

Description reveals that matched papers are inserted into news_briefs with specific source_type and domain, and that the API requires no key. This goes beyond basic purpose, though some details like rate limits or pagination behavior are omitted. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well.

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?

Description is front-loaded with a clear headline, followed by contextual comparison, behavior summary, and arg list. While efficient, the arg explanations could be more terse. Still, every sentence contributes value.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need less detail. However, the description focuses on side effects (insertion into news_briefs) without clarifying what the tool returns directly. It is adequate but leaves ambiguity about immediate output versus persistent effects.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: query defaults to configured topic, max_results defaults to 10 with max 100. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Search Semantic Scholar for papers on a topic (citation-graph discovery)'. It identifies the verb (search), resource (Semantic Scholar papers), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the citation graph and count features. This provides specific and non-tautological purpose.

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?

Explicitly states it complements PubMed and OpenAlex tools, giving clear context when to use this tool over alternatives. Also mentions free public API without requiring a key, providing practical usage guidance. No exclusions given, but the comparison is strong.

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