get_semantic_scholar_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses accepted ID formats and indicates a read-only fetch, but does not detail behavior on invalid IDs, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The term 'full' is vague about what fields are returned, though an output schema 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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact args section. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 single-ID lookup, the description covers the essential use case and input format. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It is missing explicit usage comparison, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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 only provides the parameter name and type ('string'). The description compensates fully by explaining the structure of paper_id, including examples of prefixed external IDs (DOI, ARXIV, PMID, CorpusID). This is comprehensive and adds all necessary semantic meaning.

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 a specific action ('Fetch full Semantic Scholar metadata') on a specific resource ('a single paper'). This distinguishes it from search_semantic_scholar, which presumably searches for papers, and other get_* sibling tools for different databases.

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 a paper ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides acceptance criteria for the paper_id but no comparative guidance.

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