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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the id is expected from another tool, the record includes aging relevance, non-English title handling, authors with ORCID and institutions, and a source link. It omits error behavior for a bad id but adds value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the when-to-use condition and ends on a pithy caveat ('It does not replace the paper'). The middle is a long run-on enumeration of return contents, but since no output schema exists, that detail is largely load-bearing rather than filler.

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, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: findings, species/subject counts, caveats, authorship, language, story sections, studied drugs/genes/processes, and source link. For a one-parameter read tool this is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter already carries its type, example and description. The description repeats the MED-42823970 example and adds only the provenance note that the id comes from another tool's results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get a paper' / 'one paper in depth') and clarifies the scope as a single-record drill-down, which implicitly separates it from list_papers and search_papers. It also notes the id originates from another tool's results, reinforcing that this is a follow-up detail call rather than a discovery call.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants one paper in depth') and explains where the input id comes from. There is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative siblings (list_papers/search_papers) for broader retrieval, so it stops short of full routing instructions.

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