get_papers_by_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read operation ('Retrieves'), but provides no details about potential edge cases (e.g., invalid IDs, missing papers), rate limits, data source specifics ('from sources like arXiv' is vague), or the exact structure of the returned data.

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 exactly two sentences: the first sentence concisely states the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides a clear parameter definition with examples. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), but there is no output schema, and the description does not specify what 'full details' includes (e.g., fields, format) or how errors are handled. This is a gap for a tool that lacks output documentation, though the simplicity mitigates the impact.

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 defines an array of strings without semantic meaning. The description compensates by explicitly identifying the parameter as arXiv IDs and giving concrete examples, making the parameter's purpose and format clear beyond the schema.

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 states the verb 'Retrieves', the resource 'full details for a list of papers', and the method 'using their arXiv IDs'. It clearly distinguishes from the singular sibling 'get_paper_by_id' by specifying 'a list' and 'IDs'.

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 this tool is for fetching papers when a list of arXiv IDs is already known, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like search_papers or get_paper_by_id, nor mention when not to use it.

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