get_paper

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It only states that it 'gets details' but does not disclose potential behaviors like error handling, authentication requirements, or the effect of the 'fields' parameter on the response. The supported ID types offer marginal behavioral context but are primarily parameter semantics.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and supported ID types. It contains no fluff or redundancy, earning a high score for 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?

The description covers the basic purpose and ID types, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it lacks important context for the 'fields' parameter and does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools in terms of usage. For a simple retrieval tool, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that paper_id can be a Semantic Scholar ID, DOI, arXiv ID, or other external ID, which adds meaning. However, the 'fields' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the description does not fully cover what the parameters do or their valid values.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves details for a single paper using a variety of supported ID types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_paper_authors and search_papers by specifying the resource and scope precisely.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have an ID (Semantic Scholar, DOI, arXiv, etc.) and want the paper's details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_paper_authors for author-specific information.

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