Get paper structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured information: the distinction between native PDF bookmarks and inferred headings, that inferred items are flagged in the result, and that they may be inaccurate. What it omits is the cost/latency of structure extraction and whether a paper_id with no index entry errors or returns empty.

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?

A single dense sentence lists the returned facets, front-loaded with the most concrete items, followed by one short caveat sentence. Nothing is redundant, though the run-on enumeration is harder to scan than a short bulleted list would be.

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 single-parameter read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so as a facet list rather than a structured field mapping. The absence of an output schema means agents still cannot tell exact key names or nesting. Adequate for choosing the tool, thin for consuming its result.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and the schema documents none of its semantics (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It does not explain paper_id, but the tool-level framing (this operates on a single paper's PDF) plus the strictly patterned id format in the schema makes the parameter's meaning derivable. No additional syntax or format detail is offered, keeping this just below full marks.

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 names a specific resource (paper structure) and enumerates its components: page count, native bookmarks, inferred section headings with pages, per-page text coverage and quality flags, References location. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_paper_pages (raw text) or get_paper_references (reference listing). It lacks an explicit verb ('Get/Return'), but the enumeration makes the purpose 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 never states when to use this tool versus read_paper_pages, render_paper_page, or search_papers, nor does it mention prerequisites or what to do if the structure looks wrong. The caveat that inferred items 'may be wrong' hints at a follow-up path but does not name an alternative tool. Usage must be fully inferred.

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