Like Paper

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable behavioral details: idempotent, no un-like behavior, and that it calibrates a personalized feed. No contradictions with annotations.

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, each packed with essential information. No fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by behavioral and guidance details. Efficient structure.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage boundaries, and a prerequisite (API key). With output schema present (though not detailed here), the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'arxiv_id'. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb ('like a paper') and resource ('paper'), and distinguishes from sibling 'save_paper' by explaining the difference in function (taste vs bookmark). Also frames it as a calibration signal for the For You feed. Purpose is specific and well-differentiated.

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 that the operation is INSERT-only and idempotent (liking twice is a no-op, never un-likes). Distinguishes from save_paper with clear when-to-use guidance. Also notes the requirement for SF_API_KEY, providing essential usage context.

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