Get arXiv Paper Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with open-world assumptions. The description adds some context by specifying the type of information retrieved ('abstract and available formats'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific paper including abstract and available formats.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the information retrieved, but lacks usage guidelines and parameter details, which are minor gaps in this context.

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%, meaning the parameter 'paper_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details about this parameter, such as expected format (e.g., arXiv ID like '2401.12345') or examples. With one parameter and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific paper including abstract and available formats.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('paper'), and scope ('detailed information'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'list_categories', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'search_papers' for broader searches or 'list_categories' for category listings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, such as requiring a specific paper ID format.

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