search_semantic_scholar_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add value by disclosing that results are relevance-ranked and that offset pagination is supported, which are behavioral traits beyond the raw schema. However, it omits any mention of return format, error conditions, or rate limits, which are important for a search tool. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key capabilities. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, this is a complex tool with 11 parameters, and the description does not explain how to use them effectively. It omits important context like how filters interact, what venue/publication_types accept, and pagination limits. The description is too sparse for an agent to make informed parameter choices.

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, but it does not. It merely mentions 'filters' without explaining any of the 11 parameters (e.g., year, venue, fields_of_study, min_citation_count). This provides no additional meaning over the schema's bare titles.

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 states the tool runs a relevance-ranked search for papers, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like author or snippet search by explicitly mentioning 'paper search'. However, it does not name any alternatives, so it misses the full distinguishing power 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_get_semantic_scholar_papers or search_semantic_scholar. The description only says what it does, not when to prefer it over siblings, leaving the agent without usage context.

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