search_semantic_scholar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns a result list, which implies a limited read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination, result format, or why it is 'legacy'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.

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, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Legacy paper search'). It avoids fluff, but it is so brief that it leaves out necessary details. Still, for what it contains, it is well-structured and concise.

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 is simple (2 params) but lacks annotations and has a vague description. It does not explain what 'result list' means, how it differs from search_semantic_scholar_papers, or provide any guidance on when the legacy version is appropriate. An output schema exists but its content is not visible here, so the description must cover more ground than it does.

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 should compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. The schema itself clearly defines 'query' and 'num_results' with types and defaults, but the description adds no additional semantics or usage context for these parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a paper search with the verb 'search' and resource 'paper', and adds that it returns 'only the result list'. This distinguishes it from more comprehensive sibling tools like search_semantic_scholar_papers, though it doesn't explicitly explain what the result list contains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'legacy' hints that it may be deprecated, but there is no explicit recommendation to prefer search_semantic_scholar_papers or another sibling. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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