get_all_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the type of results (preprints, published, open access) but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The read nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentences, no extraneous words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds specific examples. Highly concise and efficient.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality well. However, more detail about the output format or potential limitations (e.g., pagination) would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter described as 'Google Scholar cluster ID of the publication.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already sufficiently documents the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'all versions/variants of a publication' and lists examples like preprints, published versions, and open access copies. It distinguishes from siblings like get_citations or search_publications by focusing on versions.

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 need to find different versions of a publication, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like get_citations for citation data.

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