get_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' strongly implies a read-only retrieval and mentions included feedback/parse status, but it does not explicitly state side-effect profile, permissions, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating what is fetched and what is included.

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-item fetch with an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and need not explain return values. However, the absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves gaps for an agent choosing between this and retrieval siblings.

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 should compensate, but it never mentions paper_id or its expected format. The singular 'one paper' weakly implies an identifier, but the description adds almost no semantic detail beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one paper), and notes that feedback and parse status are included. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar retrieval siblings such as get_fulltext.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_fulltext, list_queries, or search_local. The only implied usage is fetching a single paper by identifier, with no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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