semantic_scholar_match_paper

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds that it returns a match score but does not disclose failure modes or edge cases.

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, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 low complexity and existing annotations and output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it could note the presence of optional parameters like api_key and response_format.

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 parameter 'query' already has a schema description ('Paper title to match'), and the tool description adds no further semantics. Baseline score applies due to schema coverage.

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 finds the single best paper matching a title string and returns a match score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_scholar_search_papers which returns multiple results.

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 title matching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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