paper_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that the operation is a read ('Get') and focuses on metadata, which is the primary behavior. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, permission requirements, or any side effects, leaving some room for ambiguity in edge cases.

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 two clear sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second provides necessary usage guidance. There is no redundant information or filler, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: the purpose, the source of the key, and the fact that the output is full metadata. The output schema handles return value specifics, so the description is complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameter. It does this effectively by explaining what item_key is ('shown as [KEY]') and exactly where to get it from (list_library or search_papers). This is far more informative than the schema's bare 'string' type, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Get full metadata for a paper', clearly specifying the action (get) and the resource (paper metadata). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_library and paper_text by focusing on metadata retrieval. It also mentions how to obtain the required item_key, reinforcing the tool's specific role.

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 states where the item_key comes from ('Obtain the item_key from list_library output... or from search_papers results'), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the reference to source tools implies a workflow. No alternatives are named directly, so it's not a full 5.

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