search_semantic_scholar

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It details parameters, defaults, and return format. It discloses the check_library annotation behavior. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search, this is acceptable.

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 structured with clear Args and Returns sections. It is concise, with no wasted 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 description covers all 7 parameters and the return format. Given the tool's complexity and presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete. It lacks edge cases or error handling, but this is acceptable for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by briefly describing each parameter (e.g., 'Search query string', 'Maximum results (default 20, max 100)'). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it searches for papers on Semantic Scholar. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('papers on Semantic Scholar'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search (likely local) and get_citations.

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. It implies its purpose but lacks guidance on when not to use it or comparison to sibling tools like find_related or get_references.

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