get_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns complete metadata and optionally downloads the PDF, adding behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'local storage' entails, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and parameter guidance. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second specifies returns, the third explains optional PDF download, and the fourth clarifies ID formats. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (which likely covers return values), no annotations, and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, return metadata, optional PDF download, and ID formats. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or storage implications, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining flexible ID formats (e.g., '2301.12345', 'arXiv:2301.12345', '2301.12345v1'), which provides semantic context beyond the schema's generic description. However, it does not elaborate on the parameters beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific arXiv paper', specifying it returns complete metadata and optionally downloads the PDF. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'download_paper' (which likely focuses only on downloading), 'list_downloaded_papers' (which lists already downloaded items), and 'search_papers' (which searches multiple papers).

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 detailed metadata and optionally downloading a PDF for a specific arXiv paper, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_paper' or 'search_papers'. It provides context by mentioning flexible ID formats, which helps in usage, but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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