semantic_scholar_bulk_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and side-effect transparency. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that this tool supports cursor-based pagination and returns a continuation token, and that it is intended for large result sets. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing the agent with a clearer operational picture.

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 extremely concise, composed of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Search papers') and immediately conveys the key differentiators. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with many parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential differentiating context (sorting, pagination, large result sets) and relies on the schema for parameter details. It is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not describe the response format or pagination workflow in detail. Given the annotations and schema richness, the description is reasonably complete.

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 only alludes to sorting and pagination conceptually, but does not explain any of the actual parameters (e.g., year, fields_of_study, limit, token, response_format). With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage. Although the schema itself contains parameter descriptions, the tool description offers little additional semantic meaning beyond the name of the feature.

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 'Search papers with sorting and cursor-based pagination for large result sets.' It uses a specific verb (search) and a resource (papers), and distinguishes this from regular search by highlighting sorting and pagination capabilities. The differentiation is clear even without naming the sibling tool.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with 'regular search' by stating 'Unlike regular search, supports sorting... and returns a continuation token for paging through all results.' This implies when to use this tool (when sorting or full pagination is needed) and when to use regular search (simple queries). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool, so there is a slight gap in giving a fully explicit alternative name.

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