get_paper_content

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It mentions returning markdown and a default value for collection_ids, but omits critical traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it mutates state. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it lacks structure and could be more informative without being verbose. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema) and the sibling list, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the markdown content includes, error handling, or how it differs from get_paper. The agent would need to infer or test.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions collection_ids defaults to ['anthology'] but does not clarify the purpose of paper_id or the meaning of collection_ids beyond a default. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 it retrieves full paper content in markdown format by ID, distinguishing it from siblings like get_paper (likely metadata-only) and get_citation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, so not a 5.

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 like get_paper or search_papers. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context.

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