search_semantic_scholar

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only search, returns JSON with specified fields, and explains each parameter's effect. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the API call modifies any state. The behavior is adequately inferred but not explicitly stated.

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 compact and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-line purpose, then lists parameters in Args with their descriptions, and ends with Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema (described in text), the description covers all inputs and the output structure (count, total, papers list). It lacks details on error conditions, pagination (beyond 'max 100'), or API behavior under heavy load, but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all 7 parameters: query, limit, year, open_access, sort, min_citations, and check_library. It provides meaning beyond the schema by clarifying formats (e.g., year filter '2020-2022'), options (sort by citations or year), and the purpose of check_library. This significantly aids correct usage.

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 'Search for papers on Semantic Scholar.' This is a specific verb (Search) and resource (papers on Semantic Scholar). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' (likely local Zotero) and other paper-related tools (find_related, get_citations, etc.), as it explicitly names the external source.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to avoid it. Sibling tools like 'search', 'get_citations', etc., are not referenced for comparison.

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