Search Philosophy Papers

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. It states the return format at a high level ('metadata, abstracts, and PDF URLs where available') and significantly discloses the non-obvious category_id behavior, including that it is a 'semantic lens' with relative proximity tiers and 'NOT an authoritative classification.' This goes beyond typical search tool descriptions, though it does not mention potential fallbacks or failure modes, which would have pushed it higher.

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 primary purpose. The second sentence, while long, is essential for explaining the complex category_id re-ranking mechanism and its caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler 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?

The description is complete for a search tool of this complexity: it covers the main behavior, outputs, and the one complex parameter (category_id). It lacks an explicit mention of the OpenAlex fallback behavior (which appears only in the schema's category_id description), and there is no output schema so return details are only high-level. However, given the rich schema and the tool's purpose, the description covers the essential context well.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining the category_id parameter's semantic-lens behavior, tagging tiers, and non-authoritative nature — details not present in the parameter description. This raises the score above baseline, though it does not address other parameters since the schema already covers them adequately.

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 'Search for philosophy papers using Semantic Scholar,' which clearly states the verb (search) and resource (philosophy papers) plus the specific data source (Semantic Scholar), distinguishing it from siblings like search_philarchive and search_openalex. It further specifies outputs ('metadata, abstracts, and PDF URLs') and explains the optional category_id re-ranking behavior, making the tool's purpose 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Search for philosophy papers using Semantic Scholar') and gives detailed guidance for the optional category_id parameter, including how to obtain it ('from browse_taxonomy') and what it does. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this instead of search_openalex when...' — the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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