provenance

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the type of information returned and the constraint that the paper must be 'held', but it does not explicitly state that the tool performs no mutations, nor does it describe permissions or error behavior. The verb 'Return' provides some read-only signal.

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 sentence with no fluff; the main action and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description conveys the tool's purpose and input context. However, it leaves out usage boundaries and explicit side-effect clarity, which matters because there are no annotations. For a one-parameter read tool, it is close to sufficient.

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% and the schema only provides type and title for identifier. The description adds that the identifier refers to a 'held paper', giving some context, but it does not specify the identifier format or how to obtain it. With only one parameter, this is modest but insufficient compensation.

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 ('return') and resource (acquisition route, licence, checksums, every route tried) for a held paper. This content is clearly distinct from sibling tools like fetch or search, though the description does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 used when provenance details of a paper are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or mention any exclusions. No guidance is provided on when not to use this tool.

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