Get paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that the operation is a retrieval, but does not disclose what exactly is returned, how 'canonical' is determined, error behavior for unknown IDs, or any other runtime details. This is a significant gap for a standalone tool definition.

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. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource type, and the acceptable identifier formats. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally viable. It defines the core action and the input, but without an output schema or annotations it does not explain the return value, which is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to use this tool instead of get_bibtex, read_paper, or search_papers.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clarifying that paper_id can be a paper ID, DOI, or arXiv ID. This gives the agent meaningful guidance beyond the plain string type in the schema, though exact format examples are not provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and a clear resource ('canonical research work'), and specifies the identifier types accepted. It is not a tautology and provides enough detail to distinguish it from search-oriented siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 when to use the tool: when you already have a paper ID, DOI, or arXiv ID. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_papers or read_paper, leaving some inference to the agent.

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