get_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that IDs can be with or without version suffix, which is helpful. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read operation these are less critical. It lacks explicit mention of being read-only, but it's implied.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and example. Every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but stated), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers tool purpose, usage context, and parameter formatting completely for a simple fetch operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by providing an example ID format (e.g. 2301.07041) and explaining the parameter's purpose (arxiv_id) including version suffix behavior.

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 it fetches a single paper by arXiv ID and lists the metadata returned (title, authors, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_arxiv (search) and get_recent (recent papers) by focusing on a specific ID lookup.

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 explicitly says when to use: when the user provides a specific arXiv ID and wants full metadata. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context makes it clear that this is for individual paper retrieval, not for search or listing.

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