firecrawl_research_inspect_paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's safety profile is established. The description adds value by specifying the output is rendered as markdown and listing the fields included (title, abstract, authors, etc.) – beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It specifies the input, the use case, and the output format (markdown with listed fields). Siblings like read_paper exist, so the description correctly positions inspect_paper as a metadata-fetching step.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears full burden. It clarifies the paperId parameter can be a primaryId or canonical paperId, which adds meaning beyond the basic string validation. It also describes what the output contains, effectively compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 canonical metadata for a paper by primaryId or paperId, distinguishing it from siblings like firecrawl_research_read_paper (likely full content) and firecrawl_research_related_papers. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'paper metadata' is specific.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this after search/related results when you need the full title, abstract, authors, categories, source ids, and dates rendered as markdown.' It tells the agent when to use the tool and what to expect, but does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implied search/related context.

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