Get a paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that – the not-found error path and its suggested remedy, plus the precedence rule that 'paper wins if you give both' inputs. It lacks anything about rate limits or whether the free-to-read link can be stale, but the operational contract for a lookup tool is well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the return value, then inputs, then a worked example – a sensible ordering with no wasted framing sentences. The trailing 'Example prompt' quote is mild filler that restates the DOI format already given twice.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by summarizing the returned payload (abstract, free-to-read link) and the failure mode. Complete enough to call correctly; the only residual gap is none of it clarifying overlap with find_open_access_pdf.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the conflict-resolution rule when both arguments are supplied, and a restatement that OpenAlex ids are valid only for 'paper'. That precedence rule is genuinely useful call-time behavior not encoded anywhere in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Details for one paper') and enumerates what comes back (abstract, free-to-read link when available), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like search_papers. It never names an alternative tool outright, so the boundary with find_open_access_pdf in particular is left to inference.

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 concrete input-type guidance (DOI, doi.org link, OpenAlex id) and a routing rule on failure: a not-found error suggests searching by title, which implicitly points at search_papers. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this tool over find_open_access_pdf or paper_references.

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