get_semantic_scholar_paper_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the accepted identifier formats, which is important behavioral detail. However, it omits any mention of error behavior, required encoding, or availability of an output schema, leaving some opacity.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the fields parameter is left unexplained, and the description doesn't clarify differences among the ID types or any prerequisites. It is adequate for basic invocation but not comprehensive.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain parameters. It effectively explains paper_id by listing the ID types it accepts, but it completely ignores the optional 'fields' parameter, leaving its semantics (e.g., what field names are allowed) undocumented.

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 the tool gets one paper and enumerates the accepted identifier types (S2, CorpusId, DOI, arXiv, ACL, MAG, PMID, URL ID). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_get_semantic_scholar_papers or search_semantic_scholar_papers, which handle multiple papers or use queries.

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 phrase 'Get one paper' implies a specific use case: retrieving a single paper by its ID. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool and implicitly excludes bulk retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like batch_get_semantic_scholar_papers.

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