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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: no sentence was written by a model, every label carries its probability, and the record includes what was not stated or examined. It does not discuss auth, errors, or rate limits, but those are not critical for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 longer than average but front-loads the core purpose before giving a detailed inventory of what the record contains. The final sentence about accepted identifiers is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the long middle list could be tightened, but overall the structure is readable and informative.

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?

Given the single fully described parameter, the presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete for an agent: it says what the tool returns, what it is for, when to prefer it over get_review, and what inputs it accepts. Nothing essential is missing.

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 arxiv_id parameter description already enumerates accepted forms in detail. The description only restates this at a higher level ('Accepts an arXiv id or URL, DOI, or Pith Number'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so 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 title and first sentence define the tool as retrieving a single paper's compiled record, with the description clarifying that it contains the authors' own sentences arranged with typed labels. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_review by emphasizing that this is the paper's stated content, not a review.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this for what a paper states and under what conditions' and names the alternative fallback case: when get_review reports no review. This gives an agent a clear selection rule and distinguishes it from the most relevant sibling.

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