Get arXiv Paper Details

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the server performs a live arXiv resolution when the paper was not seen this session, and it does not download the PDF — a useful scope boundary and a latency/network hint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then field list, then behavioral caveats. No filler, though the field enumeration is somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the notable non-obvious behavior (session-aware arXiv resolution, no PDF). The only gap is not situating itself against the three sibling tools.

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% and the single parameter is documented with a concrete example ('2508.19294v2'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about ID format, versioning, or invalid-ID behavior, so the 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 and resource ('Return detailed metadata for one arXiv paper') and enumerates the fields returned (title, authors, abstract, categories, dates, URLs). This distinguishes it implicitly from the search sibling by scope ('one paper'), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use this for title, authors, abstract, categories, dates, and URLs' gives a context of use, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to literature_search_papers or literature_retrieve_paper_evidence, which an agent choosing among four siblings would benefit from.

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