search_semantic_scholar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search Semantic Scholar for papers' and does not mention result formats, pagination, rate limits, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single leading sentence followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter details are directly relevant. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and parameters adequately. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description doesn't need to explain that. However, the lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines slightly hinders full contextual completeness.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query' as free-text search (title/topic/author keywords) and 'rows' as max results with a 1-100 range. This adds meaning not present in the schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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's function: 'Search Semantic Scholar for papers across all disciplines.' It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and the scope ('across all disciplines') distinguishes it from other search tools in the sibling list, such as search_crossref or search_eric, and from get_semantic_scholar_paper which retrieves a single paper.

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 usage for general academic paper searches in Semantic Scholar, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The lack of explicit guidance keeps it at 'implied usage' rather than a 4 or 5.

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