get_paper_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets detailed information' but doesn't describe what that includes (e.g., title, authors, abstract), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining the tool's function.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, error handling, or return format, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions '논문 ID' (paper ID) as the parameter, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'paper_id' property. However, it doesn't explain the format, constraints, or examples (e.g., numeric, alphanumeric, DOI), leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 purpose: '논문 ID로 상세 정보를 가져옵니다' (Get detailed information by paper ID). It specifies a verb ('가져옵니다' - get/fetch) and resource ('상세 정보' - detailed information), but is vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'scrape_recent_category_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a paper ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_papers' (which might retrieve multiple papers) or 'scrape_recent_category_papers' (which might fetch recent papers by category).

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