Get paper metadata

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds the specific return content ('full metadata and the abstract'), which is useful but not extensive. No additional behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or network dependencies are disclosed, but the bar is lower given the strong annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that clearly states the action and resource without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately conveys the purpose.

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 simple read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. The only gap is explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but that is a minor omission given the other structured fields provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 description for arxiv_id is comprehensive, covering examples and URL support (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: 'full metadata and the abstract of a single arXiv paper.' The phrase 'single arXiv paper' distinguishes this from search_papers (which likely returns multiple results) and read_paper (which likely provides full text). Even without naming siblings explicitly, the scope and resource are unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving metadata for a known arXiv paper, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_papers or read_paper. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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