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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the return content (including AI-generated TLDR, open-access PDF link when available), the data source (api.semanticscholar.org), and that no auth is required. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond them.

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 no wasteful text. The core purpose and return type are front-loaded, followed by critical usage guidance (call search first) and source/auth notes. Every sentence 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 single-parameter read-only lookup with a rich output schema (indicated by Has output schema: true), the description is complete. It covers accepted identifiers, what is returned, how to obtain the ID, and authentication requirements. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of the paper_id parameter, including its possible forms (40-char hash, DOI, ArXiv ID). The description repeats these examples, adding minimal new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description's examples are redundant.

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 the tool fetches full details for a single academic paper by ID, DOI, or ArXiv ID. It lists the specific fields returned (title, abstract, TLDR, authors, venue, fields of study, citation/reference counts, PDF link), distinguishing it from the sibling search tool which discovers papers. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'academic paper' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call semanticscholar.papers_search first to discover a paper_id from a text query, giving direct guidance on when to use this tool versus the search tool. It also clarifies the accepted ID formats, providing strong usage context and routing the agent appropriately.

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