get_paper_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns title, authors, abstract, citations, references count, publication info, keywords, URLs, and more. There is no mention of destructive behavior, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the description is sufficient.

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, with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence followed by parameter details in a bullet-like list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers the input parameters and their formats. For a tool with three optional parameters and no annotations, this is complete and well-rounded.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter with concrete examples of accepted formats (e.g., arxiv_id: 'arxiv:2301.12345' or full URL). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal type information.

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 retrieves detailed metadata for a specific paper, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_citations or get_references. It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('detailed metadata for a specific paper'), making 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 explicitly instructs the user to provide at least one identifier and details the accepted formats. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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