get_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions merging metadata and attaching open-access links, which is useful, but it does not describe error handling, response format, or confirm the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and it is concise without sacrificing needed information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and accepted input types. It is close to complete, though it could benefit from specifying the return format or behavior when an identifier cannot be resolved. Given the simplicity and lack of annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the accepted identifier types (DOI/arXiv/Scopus/OpenAlex), giving meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. However, it omits format specifics and does not clarify which identifiers are prioritized or how they are combined, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('resolve') with a clear resource (DOI/arXiv/Scopus/OpenAlex id) and the intended outcome (merge metadata, attach open-access links). It clearly distinguishes itself from the search sibling tools by focusing on resolving an existing identifier rather than searching.

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 when you have an existing identifier, but it does not explicitly contrast with the many search_* siblings or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance on alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving usage to inference.

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