paper_get

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It lists returned fields but omits critical behavioral details such as read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or response format behavior (beyond listing fields).

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 clear sentence listing returned information. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning default output format).

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?

For a single-paper retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, the description conveys core purpose and return content. However, it lacks output schema details and does not indicate response format (covered in schema) or possible errors, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'full details for a single paper by its identifier', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or batch-retrieve papers.

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 implies usage for single paper lookup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like paper_batch or paper_search. No guidance on when not to use it.

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