get_paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return content (metadata and evidence references) but does not disclose behavior around ambiguous matches (e.g., a title matching multiple papers), not-found cases, or the return format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by the identifier formats. Every element earns its place, and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (metadata and evidence references) and how the paper is identified. Minor gaps include the return structure and failure/ambiguity behavior, but these are acceptable for a simple retrieval tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies that the single 'identifier' parameter may be an ID, DOI, arXiv, bibcode, or title. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property name. It stops short of specifying exact format conventions for each identifier type, but it meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('paper metadata and evidence references'), and enumerates the accepted lookup identifiers (ID, DOI, arXiv, bibcode, title). This clearly defines the tool's scope. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the identifier-based lookup intent is distinguishable from search_literature (search) and get_source (source retrieval).

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 the siblings search_literature or get_source. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing conditions. Usage is only implied: if you have an identifier, look up by it. The description carries no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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