research_paper_details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds clear behavioral context by specifying it returns 'detailed metadata'. With an output schema present, the behavior is well-transparent. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details input formats. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information.

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 presence of annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and input requirements, though it could mention error handling or missing ID behavior for full completeness.

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 input schema already has a detailed description for the paper_id parameter (100% coverage), so the description's duplication of accepted ID formats adds minimal new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Get detailed metadata') and the resource ('a specific paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like research_paper_search (search) and research_paper_citations (citations).

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 specific accepted ID formats and prefixes, guiding parameter input, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus siblings like research_paper_citations or research_paper_recommendations, which also take paper IDs.

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