semantic_scholar_snippet_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations with the explicit rate-limit warning ('heavily rate-limited without an API key') and clarifies the return format ('text snippets with context'). This is meaningful additional transparency.

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 compact: two purposeful sentences plus a note. It front-loads the core action and return type, then a key caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain result formatting, pagination, how to scope searches (e.g., by paper IDs or fields), or any usage examples. The rate-limit note is helpful but leaves too many operational gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0% at the top level, yet the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It only indirectly relates to the api_key parameter via the rate-limit note. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions, leaving filters like year, field_of_study, and paper_ids unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('paper full text') and return type ('text snippets with context'). The title 'Search Paper Full Text' aligns, and it distinguishes from siblings like semantic_scholar_search_papers by focusing on full-text snippet retrieval rather than metadata search.

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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for searching within full text and returns snippets, implying when to use it over sibling metadata search tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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