get_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and lists ID formats, which are input constraints rather than behavioral context. It does not state read-only status, rate limits, coverage, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond what an output schema would show.

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 short, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every line earns its place. The Args section packs all identifier variants into a compact format without redundant prose.

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?

With a single required parameter, an existing output schema, and full identifier enumeraton, the description is nearly complete for a simple lookup tool. It would improve from a brief note routing users to search_papers when no identifier is available or any behavioral caveats.

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 provides no description for paper_id, but the Args block fully compensates by enumeratting all accepted formats: Semantic Scholar paper ID, DOI, ArXiv, CorpusId, PMID, ACL ID, and URL. This gives the agent the exact input semantics needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Get detailed information about a specific paper'). It distinguishes the tool from search-oriented siblings at a basic level, but does not explicitly contrast it with get_citations or get_references.

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 accepted identifier list implies this tool is for lookups when you already have a paper ID or URL. It does not explicitly guide the agent toward search_papers when no ID is available, nor does it describe when not to use this tool.

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