get_paper_details_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. The list of returned fields gives some context but is minimal for disclosure.

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 concise sentence that efficiently lists key return fields without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Despite having an output schema and one parameter, the description lacks context about error handling, invalid inputs, and differentiation from sibling tools. It is minimally sufficient but not complete for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 has only one parameter (arxiv_id) with 0% coverage (no description in schema). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's format, constraints, or examples, failing to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 tool retrieves 'detailed paper metadata' and lists specific fields like title, authors, abstract, GitHub repo, etc., which distinguishes it from siblings like list_daily_papers_tool (list) and read_paper_tool (likely full text).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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