bc_get_biorxiv_preprint_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves metadata and returns a dict, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid DOI), authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 fairly concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return fields. Slight redundancy in the returns line but overall efficient.

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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the main return fields. It does not explain error handling or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple retrieval tool. The description is complete enough for basic use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it only lists return fields. No additional syntax or format details are provided for 'doi' or 'server'.

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 retrieves detailed preprint metadata by DOI, listing specific fields (title, authors, abstract, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bc_get_recent_biorxiv_preprints, which focuses on recent preprints rather than metadata by DOI.

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, such as bc_get_recent_biorxiv_preprints for listing recent preprints or other search tools. No when-not-to-use instructions or context for choosing this tool.

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