get_paper_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves full details' without specifying what 'full details' means, how errors are handled, or any permissions/rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasteful words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though it could be slightly expanded with useful details while maintaining conciseness.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves major gaps: it doesn't describe the return payload structure, behavior when the paper is not found, or any limitations. The phrase 'full details' is vague and incomplete.

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 schema has a single parameter 'arxiv_id' with no description, and the description adds only 'using its arXiv ID', which essentially repeats the property name. It provides no format examples, constraints, or clarification on how the ID should be formatted (e.g., with or without the 'arXiv:' prefix).

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?

Clearly states the verb 'retrieves', the resource 'full details for a single paper', and the input method 'using its arXiv ID'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_papers_by_ids which handles multiple papers.

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 that this is the tool to use when you have a specific arXiv ID and want that paper's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_papers or find_papers_by_author. No direct exclusions or alternative references are given.

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