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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It is clearly a read that returns a fixed field set, but it says nothing about what happens with an invalid or retired number, or whether missing fields (e.g. no English abstract) are omitted or null.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but every item is informative. It reads cleanly, though the long field list could be tightened.

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 no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the right compensatory move and makes the response shape predictable. The remaining gap is failure behavior for nonexistent numbers, which for a one-parameter read tool is a modest omission.

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 100%, and the schema itself carries the non-obvious note that number 47 is retired and merged into 46. The description only restates that input is a paper number, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (返す) and resource (論文の番号から) and enumerates exactly which fields come back (title, subtitle, separator sentence, abstracts, keywords, YOI address, DOI). It never names the siblings search_papers or list_separators, so the agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes a paper number, so an agent can infer it is the lookup-by-id step. There is no explicit statement that search_papers should be used first to obtain a number, and no guidance for a number that no longer exists.

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