get_paper_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve complete metadata' without detailing what fields are included, whether it returns null/404 for nonexistent IDs, or any access/rate limit considerations. The vague phrase 'complete metadata' leaves the agent uncertain about the exact response shape and failure 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is no fluff or redundant content, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), but the description does not clarify what 'complete metadata' entails or what the response structure looks like. Without an output schema, the agent must guess what fields will be returned. However, given the low complexity, some lack of detail is acceptable, but a short description of return content would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter paperId, including a type and an example. The description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (the description redundantly mentions 'by its ID'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action (retrieve) and the specific resource (complete metadata for a question paper by its ID). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_papers, which is for discovering papers rather than fetching a known paper's metadata.

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 'by its ID' communicates the primary use case: when you already have a specific paper ID and need its metadata. It implies that search_papers is for finding IDs, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool over search_papers.

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