semantic_scholar_snippet_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's behavioral disclosure is limited. It adds the note about heavy rate-limiting without an API key, which is useful beyond annotations but does not elaborate on other traits like response structure or error behavior.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and return type. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema, annotations, and many parameters described in the schema. The description, while short, covers the essential purpose and adds the important rate-limit caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool, though it could mention that results are snippets from paper full text.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. The description provides no parameter-specific information beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'query', 'limit', 'year' have their own schema descriptions). The description adds no additional semantics, so it does not help the agent understand parameter usage better than the schema alone.

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's purpose: 'Search within paper full text. Returns text snippets with context.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_scholar_search_papers, which search metadata, not full text.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the context of 'search within paper full text' implies it is for text-level queries, and the sibling tools suggest other search types. The rate-limiting note provides some usage constraint but no alternative guidance.

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