research_paper

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains exactly what happens without a query (metadata fields listed) and with a query (top full-text passages). This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's conditional behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every line adds information. The behavior is summarized first, followed by concise parameter details. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 a readOnlyHint, an output schema, only two parameters, and a clear explanation of both input formats and output modes, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full semantic load. It does: paper_id is explained as a paperId or primaryId with an example format, and query is described as an optional question returning verification passages.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('ONE paper from the Research Index'), and the exact accepted identifiers. It differentiates from siblings like research_papers by emphasizing single-paper retrieval and the optional query mode.

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 the tool: to VERIFY that a paper contains a method/dataset/result before relying on it. It implies research_papers is the source for finding paper IDs but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond this.

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