get_paper_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (retrieve details) and supported IDs, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or what 'details' include. The output schema likely covers return structure, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context.

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 relatively concise with the main purpose stated first. The 'Args:' section adds necessary detail but is slightly longer than needed. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 the tool has only one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the parameter formats. It is complete for a simple lookup tool, especially with the presence of an output schema defining the return values.

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 provides no description for the paper_id parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing example formats for arXiv ID, DOI, and Semantic Scholar SHA ID, adding meaning beyond the type string alone.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (조회=retrieve) and resource (논문 상세 정보=paper details). It specifies support for multiple ID types (arXiv, DOI, Semantic Scholar SHA), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_papers which search by query.

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?

Description explains which IDs are supported, implying usage when you have a known paper ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to use search_papers instead. The support for three ID types provides good context.

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