get_paper_details_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns 'formatted detailed text', implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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: three sentences that front-load the purpose, explain ID handling, and mention the output format. No superfluous 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which details return structure), the description does not need to elaborate on output fields. It adequately states it returns 'detailed text' with abstract. Considering sibling tools exist for different sources, the description provides enough context for basic usage.

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 single parameter paper_id has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining valid formats: Scopus ID (including prefix) or DOI. This helps the agent format the input correctly, which the schema alone does not convey.

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's purpose: getting detailed metadata and the full abstract for a specific paper. It also explains the ID resolution logic, distinguishing it from the sibling get_paper_details_s2_tool by noting it uses Scopus for Scopus IDs and DOIs. However, it does not explicitly state this tool uses Scopus exclusively, which could be clearer.

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 provides some usage guidance by explaining which paper_id formats are accepted and that it uses Scopus. However, it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention the alternative sibling tool (get_paper_details_s2_tool) for comparison.

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