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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a modest behavioral contract by listing the returned fields (title, authors, abstract, full text link, DOI, publisher, year, citation count), but it does not disclose failure behavior for invalid/unknown IDs or any rate-limit/auth nuances. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and lookup key; the second efficiently lists the return fields. Everything present earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read operation, the description is complete: annotations carry the safety profile, the schema fully documents both required parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be elaborated. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly. The only minor gap is explicit differentiation from search_papers, which was already penalized under usage guidelines.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'CORE ID' reinforces the id parameter's meaning, and the full-text-link/DOI field list hints at what the tool can provide, but it adds little semantic value beyond the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full metadata for a research paper'), and the lookup key ('by its CORE ID'). It further enumerates the exact fields returned, making it unambiguous and readily distinguishable from sibling search_papers, which searches rather than fetches by ID.

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 usage context is implied: the agent is told the paper is identified by CORE ID, which signals this tool is for when an ID is already known. However, the description never explicitly names search_papers as the alternative for finding papers by query, nor states a when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule. The routing to the correct sibling is left to inference.

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