get_paper_details

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only vaguely mentions 'detailed information' without clarifying what fields are returned (e.g., authors, abstract, date). It also does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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, which is efficient for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be expanded slightly with key details without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify what 'detailed information' includes, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's suitability compared to sibling tools that also provide paper insights.

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?

The single parameter 'arxiv_id' is well-described in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the action ('get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific paper'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_library_paper, which may also retrieve paper details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not specify that this tool is for arXiv papers only, nor does it suggest alternatives like get_library_paper for library-stored papers.

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