get_paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds 'full metadata' but does not disclose additional behavioral context like response size, pagination, or handling of missing papers. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 concise sentence, 'Fetch full metadata for a single paper,' that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations provided), the description is nearly complete. It does not explain return values, but the output schema covers that. The only minor gap is lack of mention of error cases, but openWorldHint in annotations partially covers that. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward fetch tool.

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% for the single identifier parameter, with a detailed explanation of supported formats (DOI, S2 paper ID, arXiv ID with prefix, etc.). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the schema carries the semantic weight; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch full metadata for a single paper' uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'paper', with clear scope ('single'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_papers (search) and get_author (author), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the name and description, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and similar fetch tools like get_author or get_book.

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