search_semantic_scholar

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses sort order and that metadata is normalized, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or what 'normalized' entails. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action. It could be slightly more structured, but it efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 the basic purpose and sort order. The existence of an output schema compensates for missing return value details. However, it does not address the breadth of possible queries or limitations, leaving some gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe the query or max_results parameters, though the tool's purpose implies query is a search string. The mention of citation count sort gives some context, but parameter meaning is largely missing.

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 Semantic Scholar for papers and returns normalized metadata sorted by citation count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_arxiv (different source) and get_semantic_scholar_paper (specific paper retrieval).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where other tools would be more appropriate.

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