get_abstract

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds extra behavioral context by explicitly stating it fetches metadata without downloading the paper, enumerating the returned fields, and advising usage as a relevance-screening step. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no filler; it is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 metadata-fetching tool with one parameter, readOnly annotations, and no output schema, the description covers invocation context, return fields, and conditional usage. Nothing important is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter paper_id is fully described in the schema with a type and example. The description merely mentions 'by arXiv ID,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Fetch abstract and metadata by arXiv ID,' and immediately differentiates itself by noting 'without downloading the paper,' which distinguishes it from the sibling download_paper. Listing the returned fields (title, authors, abstract, categories, published date, PDF URL) makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use before download_paper to assess relevance' and 'After compact search, use for one full abstract; skip if search used abstract_mode=full.' This provides both when-to-use and when-to-skip guidance, clearly distinguishing it from alternate flows.

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