Match Paper By Title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape well ('Returns the top match with a confidence score'), but says nothing about what happens when no confident match exists, matching tolerance, authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a concrete example and a compact parameter bullet. Minor redundancy between 'for a given title string' and the query bullet, but nothing wasteful.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage example, and the essential return value (top match + confidence). Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., no-match handling), which keeps it from a 5.

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 must compensate, and it does: it names the parameter and gives a concrete example value. It could add more on format constraints (whitespace, truncation, casing), but the meaning of the single parameter is clear.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Find the best-matching paper for a given title string') and clarifies the resolution use case, which distinguishes it from title-agnostic siblings like search_papers. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 a concrete usage context ('resolving plain-text references like Attention Is All You Need to a Semantic Scholar paper ID'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., search_papers) or stating 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.