s2_get_paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable disclosure about the return shape ('unified envelope with a single item') and NOT_FOUND case, which the annotations do not convey. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second states the return behavior. No redundant adjectives or filler; every clause contributes to a usable definition.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the input format, the output container, and the not-found signal. No critical missing information remains for an agent to invoke 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by enumerating the accepted identifier formats (S2 ID, DOI, ArXiv ID, URL). This gives an agent the exact semantics needed to populate the paper_id parameter correctly, including examples in the parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('one paper') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying single-item lookup by ID, in contrast to search or batch retrieval. The identifier types are enumerated, making the scope unambiguous.

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 usage when you have a single paper identifier and need that specific paper, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over s2_search_papers or s2_batch_papers. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the routing to the agent's inference.

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