academic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns up to `limit` results, includes title/link (open-access PDF preferred), and truncates abstracts to 400 chars. It also states 'No API key required.' This goes beyond a simple 'search' statement and provides useful operational detail, though it omits rate limits or error handling.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without sacrificing necessary detail, such as result fields and truncation limits.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: the source (Semantic Scholar), authentication ('No API key required'), result count behavior, and what each result contains. It provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without seeing the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `limit` directly: 'Returns up to `limit` results' — clarifying its effect on result count. The `query` parameter is implied by the tool's purpose ('Search... for academic papers'), making it self-explanatory. No syntax or examples are given, but for two simple params this is sufficient.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Search Semantic Scholar for academic papers.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search or wikipedia_search, which are more general or target different content. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 academic paper searches but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like web_search or wikipedia_search. 'No API key required' is a usage prerequisite, but no exclusion or alternative guidance is provided. The context is clear, but not explicit.

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