get_repec_paper

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

Despite having no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior: it fetches metadata from an IDEAS paper detail page and returns structured information. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects, but for a read-only scraping tool, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured with clear headings and bullet points, making it easy to scan. Every section (purpose, usage, args, returns, example) is concise and informative, with no unnecessary words.

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 all necessary aspects: purpose, input format, return values (including a detailed list of fields), and a concrete example. Without an output schema, it fully explains what the tool returns, making it contextually complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only provides title and type for the single parameter with 0% coverage. The description compensates exceptionally well by providing multiple examples of valid inputs (both URL and RePEc handle) and explaining the expected format, adding significant meaning 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 clearly states that the tool gets detailed paper information from RePEc/IDEAS, specifying that it fetches complete metadata including abstract, authors, keywords, and JEL codes that may be missing from search results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_repec, although it does not differentiate from the similarly named read_repec_paper.

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 a 'USE THIS WHEN' section with three explicit scenarios: when you have a URL/handle from search results and need the abstract, when you want complete author information, and when you need JEL codes. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the guidance is clear and contextually appropriate.

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