firecrawl_research_inspect_paper

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool fetches metadata and renders it as markdown. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description aligns with. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word adds value, making it highly 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?

Given the tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (title, abstract, authors, categories, source ids, dates as markdown). It is complete for a simple fetch operation.

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%, so the description is not required to detail parameters, but it adds context by providing examples of valid paper ID formats (arxiv, pmcid, pmid, doi) and stating it uses primaryId or canonical paperId. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 begins with 'Fetch canonical metadata for one paper by primaryId or canonical paperId,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for inspecting a single paper after search or related results.

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 advises using this tool 'after search/related results when you need the full title, abstract, authors, categories, source ids, and dates rendered as markdown.' This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives.

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