Get an arXiv paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and immutability. The description adds value by enumerating the specific metadata returned (abstract, DOI, journal reference, categories, PDF link), which is not in the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause earns its place: the verb, the scope (one known ID), and the return contents are all included efficiently.

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 simplicity (one parameter, well documented in schema), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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% because the parameter has its own description ('arXiv ID or arXiv abstract/PDF URL'), so the schema already explains what arxiv_id accepts. The tool description does not add further parameter detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'complete metadata for one known arXiv ID', and explicitly notes this is for a single known ID, distinguishing it from sibling search tools. The description clearly communicates exact scope and content.

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 phrase 'for one known arXiv ID' implies when to use it (you have the exact ID) and implicitly distinguishes it from search-based siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions beyond what is implied.

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