Scholar Feed MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns details for found papers and lists not-found IDs, which helps manage partial failures. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling for invalid inputs beyond the schema's constraints.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: first states the core purpose, second clarifies the return behavior. Front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place by adding 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the batch nature and partial results handling, but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error scenarios. Given the 2-parameter complexity and 100% schema coverage, it's minimally viable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples for 'fields' beyond the schema's example). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Look up multiple papers at once'), resource ('papers by arXiv ID'), and scope ('batch operation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_paper' (singular) and 'search_papers' (search-based) by emphasizing bulk retrieval of known IDs.

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 when you have specific arXiv IDs and want batch efficiency, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_paper' (for single papers) or 'search_papers' (for unknown papers). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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