arxiv_get_paper

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

With no annotations, the description fully details the return fields (title, authors, abstract, etc.) and response format options. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but as a read operation, transparency is adequate.

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 and well-structured: summary line, bullet-like field list, clear args section, return description, and examples. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant sentences.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema (implied from JSON fields), the description covers inputs, outputs, and examples completely. No gaps remain.

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 significant value beyond the schema: provides paper_id format examples (including old-style IDs), lists both response_format options, and gives concrete usage examples. Schema descriptions are also present but description enhances understanding.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'full metadata for a specific arXiv paper by its ID.' It distinguishes from siblings like arxiv_search (search) and arxiv_fetch_paper_text (full text).

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 usage for retrieving metadata by ID, with examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or specify alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide context.

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