firecrawl_research_paper_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that there are two distinct behaviors (metadata vs passage reading), but does not disclose mode-selection rules, limits, or return shape.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the two capabilities. Nothing is wasted and the essential action is stated immediately.

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 carries some burden for explaining returns, yet it only broadly says metadata or passages. The schema compensates for parameter behavior, but the two-mode contract and what each mode returns are only minimally conveyed.

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%, so the schema already documents that query returns matching passages, k sets passage count (defaulting to 4), and id is a paperId or primaryId. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (inspect/read) and resource (research paper) and outlines two modes: metadata inspection and passage reading. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling firecrawl_research_papers_search.

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 two operating modes are implied, and the schema hints that passing a query triggers read mode, but the description never states when to use this tool versus firecrawl_research_papers_search or when to prefer metadata vs passage reading. Usage is left to inference.

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