semantic_scholar_search

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It discloses that it covers 200M+ papers, returns specific data, and lacks rate limits or auth details, but given the read-only nature and rich output list, it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Compact two-sentence description that front-loads the core purpose. Slightly verbose with the 'Superior to ArXiv' comparison but adds value for sibling differentiation.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields (title, abstract, etc.) which aids completeness. No major gaps noted for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100% and description does not add significant additional meaning beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it searches for academic papers across all disciplines, listing returned data elements (title, abstract, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling ArXiv tool by emphasizing all fields and citation graph.

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 explicitly states it is 'Superior to ArXiv alone' for all-field coverage and citation data, providing clear context for when to use this tool instead.

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