batch_get_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral constraints beyond the schema: accepted ID formats (S2 IDs, DOIs, ArXiv IDs), a hard limit of 500, and that fields default to standard detail fields. The verb 'Look up' also makes the read-only nature clear. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid IDs, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core behavior in one sentence and then documenting the two parameters succinctly. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 2-parameter lookup with an output schema present, this is complete: it defines the operation, both parameters, accepted ID types, the max batch size, and field behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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 0%, and both parameters are fully explained in the description: paper_ids includes accepted identifier types and the 500 limit, while fields specifies comma-separated output format and default behavior. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Look up multiple papers at once by their IDs.' This directly distinguishes it from get_paper (single paper) and search_papers (query-based), so an agent can pick it correctly without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'multiple papers at once by their IDs' supplies clear usage context: use this when you already have a batch of paper IDs and need their details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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