Get Similar Papers (Semantic Scholar)

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds input provenance ('paperId from a semanticscholar search result') and a result-count ceiling, but doesn't disclose potential external API failures, rate limits, or invalid-ID behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before usage guidance. Every sentence adds information.

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 two-parameter, output-schema-backed tool with strong annotations, the description provides enough context: source of the id, operation, and result limit. It doesn't discuss failure modes, but the simplicity and annotations make that a minor 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 coverage is 50%; id is documented in the schema, and the description enriches it by requiring it come from a Semantic Scholar search result. limit has no schema description but the 'Returns up to 500 similar papers' phrase indirectly conveys its meaning, though not fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get papers similar to a given paper' via Semantic Scholar's recommendation engine. This clearly separates it from siblings like library_search and library_citations by identifying the operation as recommendation rather than search or citation lookup.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: you need an existing paperId from a Semantic Scholar search result and want similar papers. It doesn't spell out alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to pick this over search or citations.

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