search_semantic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what specific metadata fields are included. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then uses clear sections (Args, Returns) to organize parameter and return information. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about what 'paper metadata' includes. The formatting with bullet-like sections is effective for readability.

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 moderate complexity (search with filtering), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description does a good job. The parameter documentation is comprehensive, and the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address the tool's behavioral aspects and provide differentiation from sibling tools given the crowded namespace of search options.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage (titles only), the description fully documents all three parameters: explaining what 'query' is with an example, detailing the flexible 'year' filter format with multiple examples, and specifying the 'max_results' default value. This completely compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context about parameter 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search academic papers from Semantic Scholar.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'), and identifies the source ('Semantic Scholar'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools including many other search tools (search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_crossref, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific Semantic Scholar search over other search options. There's no mention of Semantic Scholar's unique coverage, strengths, or limitations compared to other sources.

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