paper_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get'), performance characteristics ('fast, <1s'), data sources ('Unpaywall, Crossref, arXiv APIs'), and what information is returned. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers most essential aspects.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by sources, returns, args, and examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, parameter semantics with examples, and mentions the return format. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that information.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It clearly explains the 'identifier' parameter with specific examples of valid formats (DOI, arXiv ID, URL) and provides concrete usage examples, adding substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('paper metadata'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it's 'without downloading' (unlike 'paper_download' and 'paper_batch_download'). The phrase 'fast, <1s' adds useful context about performance.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('without downloading') and implicitly contrasts with download-focused siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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