get_paper_detail

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the description adds little behavioral context. It does not disclose what fields are returned, error behavior, or access requirements beyond what annotations indicate.

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 extremely concise at 8 words, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering read-only behavior and open-world semantics, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of edge cases (e.g., missing paper ID) or confirmation of single-result return, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain the meaning or format of 'paper_id' or 'api_email'. It adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names, which is insufficient for proper invocation.

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 it retrieves ChinaRxiv paper metadata/details by paper ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('paper metadata/details'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_paper_pdf, get_paper_full_text, and get_paper_figures, which target different aspects.

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 such as search_papers or get_paper_full_text. There are no contextual hints about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate use.

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