get_abstract

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

With readOnlyHint=true already providing the safety profile, the description adds context by emphasizing the tool does not download the full paper and returns listed metadata fields. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, usage guidance, return summary, and a workflow tip. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with good annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, returned data, and workflow placement, leaving no significant gaps. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of returned fields.

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% and the single parameter paper_id is well described. The description only restates that the tool fetches by ID, adding no extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('abstract and metadata of an arXiv paper by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from download_paper by explicitly stating it does NOT download the full paper. It also names the metadata returned, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this before download_paper to assess relevance and save tokens.' It also provides a concrete workflow (search_papers -> get_abstract -> download_paper -> read_paper), making the usage context and alternatives very clear.

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