paper_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: Semantic Scholar is tried first, with OpenAlex/Crossref as fallback, and it lists the specific fields returned. It does not mention rate limits or behavior for nonexistent IDs, but for a read-only lookup the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the operation, the second covers accepted inputs, and the third summarizes the fallback behavior and output fields. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete it covers input formats, source preference, and returned fields. It misses explicit guidance on when to use siblings and what happens when an identifier is not found, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema only defines doi_or_id as a string with no further description, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the three accepted identifier types with concrete examples for DOI, arXiv ID (bare, prefixed, and URL), and OpenAlex ID. This is complete parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get full metadata for a paper') and specifies the resource: paper metadata retrieved by DOI, arXiv ID, or OpenAlex ID. It is distinct from the sibling tools such as search_papers or read_paper_full_text, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you already have an identifier for a paper and want full metadata. It gives accepted ID formats and examples, but it does not explicitly say 'use search_papers when you lack an identifier' or otherwise state when not to use this tool.

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