semantic_scholar_paper_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' without specifying the nature of details (e.g., abstract, citations, fields) or any side effects, rate limits, or dependencies. This is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is extremely minimal and lacks any additional structure or context that could improve usability. While not verbose, it could be enhanced without being excessive.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'detailed information' entails. With many sibling tools for research, a user agent might need clarity on the scope of details (e.g., abstract, references, citations). The current description is too vague to be fully complete.

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 provides a description for the single parameter ('Semantic Scholar paper ID or DOI'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific paper from Semantic Scholar', making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling search tools like 'search_semantic_scholar' by focusing on retrieving details for a single paper by ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that a specific paper ID is required or that it should be used after finding a paper via search. The context is implied by the required parameter, but not explicitly stated.

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