semantic_scholar_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which lower the burden. The description adds value by specifying the exact components checked (server health, API connectivity, key status), providing more detail than a generic 'check status.' It does not disclose return format or potential error conditions, but the annotations handle the critical safety aspects.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well by listing three specific status areas. However, it does not describe the response structure, which could be useful for an agent deciding how to interpret the result. Still, for a low-complexity tool with strong annotations, this is adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. With no parameters to describe, the baseline for this dimension is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific information.

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: 'Check server health, API connectivity, and key status.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all focused on searching or retrieving papers/authors. There is no ambiguity about the tool's role as a status/health check.

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 versus alternatives, but the sibling context makes it obvious that this is the only status-related tool. The usage is implied rather than directly stated, and there is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this should be called (e.g., before other API calls).

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