Research Paper Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-lookup profile is covered. The description adds the accepted identifier forms, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about lookup failures for invalid IDs or rate limiting; the output schema covers return values, so a 3 is fair.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. The second sentence duplicates schema content, which slightly reduces its efficiency, but the structure is clean and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the sibling-routing guidance is absent, which is a minor gap given the explicit ID formats.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single paper_id parameter, and the description merely restates the same format details (DOI:/ArXiv: prefixes) already present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no meaning beyond it.

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 ('Get detailed metadata') and resource ('a specific paper'), making the lookup-by-ID intent clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as research_paper_search or research_paper_citations, but the 'specific paper' framing implies single-item retrieval rather than discovery.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to call once it already holds a paper identifier. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over research_paper_search (to obtain an ID first) or research_paper_citations, and no stated preconditions.

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