get_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses caching behavior ('Served from cache when possible'), return contents (normalized metadata plus derived URLs), and accepted id forms. Although it does not explicitly state read-only status, the verb 'fetch' implies a non-mutating operation.

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 three focused sentences: purpose, accepted id formats, and caching/return behavior. Every sentence contributes value, and the front-loaded purpose allows quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so detailed return fields are unnecessary. The description covers the main input variants, caching behavior, and output summary. The only gap is session_id, but for a straightforward metadata fetch, the overall behavior is sufficiently specified.

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 description adds rich meaning to paper_id by listing multiple accepted id formats (arXiv, URL, DOI), going well beyond the schema's bare string type. However, session_id is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and effect undocumented. With 0% schema coverage, this is a notable omission.

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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('full metadata for one paper'), and the input method ('by arXiv id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_papers (search) and read_paper (content), and the enumerated id forms make the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve full metadata for a single paper) and details acceptable input formats. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like read_paper or download_paper, so no exclusions are stated.

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