s2_search_papers

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: relevance-ranking mode, result.total being an estimate, title script-based language classification, and a coverage caveat. These details help an agent interpret results correctly and are consistent with the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the second paragraph adds meaningful caveats about ranking and coverage. The title-script detail is niche but relevant; the description remains compact with no filler.

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 rich output schema and annotations, the description covers the important missing semantics: matching behavior, result total interpretation, language typing, and fallback guidance for weak coverage. Pagination and per-field constraints are already in the schema, so no critical information is missing.

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 description summarizes the filter families (year, field-of-study, citations, open access) that correspond to schema parameters, but the schema itself already documents each parameter with clear descriptions. The description adds a concise framing but doesn't provide much semantic detail beyond what the structured schema already carries.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Semantic Scholar for papers by keyword' and enumerates the available filters. It clearly distinguishes this from author search and paper-retrieval siblings, so an agent can tell what it does without opening schemas.

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 gives a clear main use case (keyword search with filters) and adds practical guidance: a ZERO_RESULTS in non-English humanities is weak evidence, and it names alternative servers to consult. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like s2_get_paper or s2_citations, but the search framing makes the primary context clear.

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