semantic_scholar_match_paper

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns a match score, which is not in the annotations. This is helpful for the agent to know what output to expect. It does not discuss edge cases like no match or ambiguous matches, but the strong annotation coverage reduces the need for further disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary intent and return value. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler. It is an excellent example of concise, structured description.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and return type. It does not explicitly state how to handle edge cases like no match or ambiguous titles, but these are likely predictable for a title-matching tool. The presence of response_format and api_key parameters is handled by the schema, so the description need not repeat them.

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 tool description provides no parameter information, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. Although the input schema includes rich descriptions (e.g., query is 'Paper title to match'), the rubric requires the description to compensate for low coverage. Since it does not mention any parameters or how to fill them, the description adds no value beyond what the schema already offers. This is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Find the single best paper matching a title string') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools: it returns a single best match rather than a list (unlike search_papers) and operates on a title string rather than an ID (unlike get_paper). This is concise and 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 when to use this tool: when you have a title string and want the single best matching paper. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the phrase 'single best paper' contrasts with search tools that return lists, providing clear context. No exclusions are mentioned, but given the straightforward use case, this is sufficient.

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