Get paper details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that a rich metadata payload (abstract, authors, citations, keywords) is returned, but says nothing about failed lookups or rate limits, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded on the action and identifier, then the return payload.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields ('abstract, authors, citations, keywords, and more'), which is the key missing piece. Minor gap: no statement on behavior when the bibcode is invalid or not found.

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 single bibcode parameter is documented with a concrete example, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces that the bibcode is the lookup key without adding format or validation semantics.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific paper'), keyed on the bibcode identifier. It is clearly distinguishable from search_papers and the author/metrics siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'using its bibcode' phrasing implies the tool is for single-paper lookups once an identifier is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to search_papers for discovery scenarios.

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