Get several papers

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

Annotations cover only read-only and open-world, so the description earns its credit by disclosing real behavior: items are split into two OpenAlex requests by identifier type, results preserve input order, and unknown references are returned at the end as 'not found' rather than failing the whole call. The partial-failure semantics are exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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-loads the batching purpose and the caller-facing benefit before moving to request splitting and failure handling. Slightly padded by the trailing 'Inputs' summary and example prompt, which duplicate schema content, but nothing is seriously wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself: same detail level as search_papers, one-line abstract, input order preserved, and not-found entries appended. For a single-parameter batch tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already lists DOI, doi.org link, and OpenAlex id forms plus the 1-10 bounds, so the description largely restates the schema. The example prompt adds a small amount of concrete usage value but no new constraint or format detail.

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 and resource with an explicit scope cap ('up to 10 papers in one call') and differentiates itself from the sibling 'search_papers' by promising the same details in caller-supplied order. An agent can distinguish it from get_paper and search_papers without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: a pasted reference list that would otherwise need one call per paper, and contrasts this with the implicit alternative of repeated lookups. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_paper for a single DOI, but the batching context makes that boundary obvious.

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