get_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation with no side effects, and the example shows input format, but nothing is disclosed about behavior on invalid IDs, response shape, or network dependence. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

One purposeful sentence plus a runnable example, with the core purpose front-loaded. No wasted words; the example earns its place by clarifying parameter format.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present (so return values needn't be spelled out), the description covers the essential contract: what it does and what input it expects. Slightly light on usage guidance, but essentially complete for this complexity level.

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. It does not describe arxiv_id in prose, but the example '2402.19473' concretely demonstrates the expected arXiv ID format. This adds value beyond the bare string type, though it stops short of explaining accepted variants (e.g., with/without version suffix).

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (detailed information about a specific arXiv paper). The qualifier 'specific' plus the example distinguishes it from siblings such as search_papers (finding papers) and summarize_paper (summarizing). An agent can tell it apart from the search/extraction siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Usage context is only implied: 'specific arXiv paper' suggests this is for fetching details for a known ID rather than searching, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives are given. It doesn't route away from search_papers or list_saved_papers the way an explicit note would.

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