get_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: the abstract is 'reconstructed from OpenAlex' and references are 'enriched from CrossRef.' It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the provenance details add meaningful context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, scope, and included metadata fields while keeping provenance details concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it fetches and by which identifier. It does not explicitly expand on usage relative to siblings, but the sibling names and the 'single paper by DOI' scope provide sufficient context.

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 input schema fully documents the doi parameter with examples and accepted formats (bare string, URL, or prefixed). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating 'by DOI,' and with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool fetches full metadata for a single paper by DOI, listing specific content areas (abstract, authors, concepts, references). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers and download_pdf by specifying 'single paper' and 'by DOI'.

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 implies use when you have a DOI and want full metadata, and the sibling tool list makes the alternative contexts obvious. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls 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.