hf_papers_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'checks' and 'gets metadata' but does not explain what happens if the paper is not indexed, the return format, or potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, errors). This is a significant gap for a tool that could return different outcomes.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasteful language or repetition of the tool name, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still fails to explain the return value or behavior for absent papers. It mentions 'get its metadata' but does not indicate whether the result is a boolean, metadata object, or error, leaving an important gap for an agent to correctly interpret the outcome.

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 100% coverage with a clear description ('arXiv paper ID') for the single required parameter. The tool description does not add extra parameter details (e.g., expected format like '2301.12345'), but the schema is already sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('check if a paper is indexed') and the resource ('on Hugging Face'), and adds that metadata is retrieved. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like hf_papers_info, which may also return metadata for a single paper, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The name implies a verification use case, but the description does not articulate when to prefer this over hf_papers_search or hf_papers_info.

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