match_semantic_scholar_paper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states that the tool finds the best matching paper, but does not disclose how matching works (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), whether it returns null if no match, how filters affect the match, or any potential side effects (though likely read-only). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence with no filler, directly stating the core purpose. However, given the tool's 9 parameters, this brevity borders on under-specification, though it remains efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 tool has a rich schema (9 parameters) and sibling tools that differentiate among search/match/get operations, but the description gives no context on return value, filter behavior, or edge cases. It is complete only for a trivial tool and does not meet the needs of an agent selecting among closely related Semantic Scholar tools.

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?

The description only clarifies that the 'query' parameter is the 'supplied title'; all other parameters (year, venue, fields, fields_of_study, open_access_pdf, publication_types, min_citation_count, publication_date_or_year) receive no explanation beyond their schema names. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 uses the verb 'Find' with resource 'paper' and specifies the matching criterion ('whose title best matches a supplied title'). This clearly distinguishes it from search tools (which return multiple results) and get-details tools (which take an ID), giving it a specific 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?

The description implies usage when the user has a title and wants the best-matching paper, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over search_semantic_scholar_papers or batch_get_semantic_scholar_papers, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. Thus, usage guidance is only implied.

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