Inspect paper and available copies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value by asserting 'Fetches metadata only' (no file retrieval) and that 'available locations with exact download arguments' are returned for follow-up. It also flags a non-obvious retrieval caveat that repository names/affiliations don't determine a thesis's awarding institution. It does not explain the idempotentHint=false signal, which is mildly surprising for a read-only metadata call.

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?

Front-loaded with the accepted identifier types and the return payload, followed by usage and a caveat; almost every clause carries information. The closing sentence about thesis awarding institutions is useful but slightly tangential and reads as an afterthought rather than integrated guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes the payload and the pagination concept via available copies, which helps an agent plan the article_download follow-up. Given the 4-parameter, low-complexity schema and full annotation coverage, little is missing; only the idempotency nuance and explicit sibling routing are absent.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form. The description only marginally extends this by noting that location details include 'replayable download arguments' (relating to locations_page) and that explicit provider choices 'constrain the provider'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (one DOI, OpenAlex W ID/work URL, or Anna's Archive hash), and enumerates what comes back: citation identity, abstract, authors, repository, versions/licenses, and available locations. This clearly separates it from article_search (discovery) and article_download (retrieval).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use before choosing a specific version or copy, or to recover a landing link when no file can be obtained', which gives a clear use condition and a fallback scenario. It never names article_download or article_read directly, so the routing to siblings is implied via 'Fetches metadata only' rather than spelled out.

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