get_paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral distinction that the response format depends on the chosen source – full metadata via OpenAlex versus compact graph metadata with citation counts via Inciteful. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but given the annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 clear structure, no filler, and the core information front-loaded.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary decision (source selection) and the identifier types. It lacks explicit return-value details but the high-level statement of 'full metadata' or 'compact graph metadata' gives the agent enough context to call it 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 schema documents the id parameter's accepted formats, and the description reinforces it by naming DOI/OpenAlex ID/PMID, while also giving semantic meaning to the source parameter by describing what metadata each source returns. However, it does not elaborate on what qualifies as an 'Inciteful-supported identifier', leaving some ambiguity for that parameter.

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 ('Retrieve'), a resource ('paper'), and the two data sources with their metadata types, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_abstract and get_full_text that target different content.

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 the tool is for retrieving a paper by identifier and contrasts OpenAlex (full metadata) with Inciteful (compact graph metadata), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like search_papers or get_abstract, nor when not to use it. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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