search_semantic_scholar_snippets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the search action and source fields, but does not mention output format, pagination, result structure, or any limitations. The existence of an output schema partially covers return values, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic purpose.

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 verb and object. It has no filler, and every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose. For a tool of this complexity, brevity is positive, though it comes at the cost of missing details noted in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is inadequate. While the output schema exists and covers return values, the description does not explain how the search works, what filters are available, or how to construct a query. It provides only the bare minimum context.

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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain any parameters. It merely mentions the fields searched (titles, abstracts, full text), which does not map to specific parameters like venue, authors, or min_citation_count. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('relevant passages from paper titles, abstracts, and full text'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_semantic_scholar_papers, which search for papers rather than passages. The scope of search is well-defined.

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 the tool is for finding passages within papers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like search_semantic_scholar_papers or search_semantic_scholar. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. The usage context is only implied by the wording.

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