get_paper_details

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

The description lists return fields (abstract, authors, journal, citation count) but does not clarify side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially meets it.

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 with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence is necessary and adds value, with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameter format, and return values adequately. No missing information for an agent to use 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 input schema only defines doi as a required string with no description. The description adds a clear explanation and an example ('10.1038/nature14539'), significantly improving parameter understanding despite 0% schema coverage.

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 the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific paper by DOI, which distinguishes it from sibling tools 'ask_research_question' and 'search_papers' that serve different purposes.

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 using the tool when you have a DOI and want details, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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