Get library papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether results are paginated, how large a library listing can be, or what the returned 'paper details' include.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, but the second sentence largely restates the first ('returns paper details' vs 'get all papers'). Efficient but not fully earned.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the library-vs-collection wording ambiguous and gives no sense of result volume or ordering.

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 100% and the schema already tells the agent the library_id comes from list_libraries. The description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get papers from a library) and clarifies it returns paper details, which distinguishes it from list_libraries and add_to_library. Minor wobble between 'library' and 'collection' in the second sentence slightly muddies the target resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like search_papers, get_paper_details, or get_author_papers. The only routing hint is inherited from the schema's mention of list_libraries, not the description.

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