enrich_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a cooldown window and the refresh flag's re-enrichment behavior, which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is an asynchronous trigger, what side effects occur, whether authentication is needed, or what the response contains.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the refresh nuance is placed in a separate, clearly scoped sentence.

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 simple trigger tool, the description gives enough to attempt a call: it identifies the required parameter and the purpose. Yet with no output schema, it fails to explain whether the tool returns enriched data immediately or only initiates enrichment, and it omits cooldown duration and error behavior. These are meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains refresh=True's meaning relative to the cooldown window, adding value beyond the schema. But arxiv_id is left entirely to its name and required status; no format, example, or context is given.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Trigger OpenAlex enrichment') and lists the expected outputs: topics, citations, and related works. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_related_papers, so it lacks full differentiation, but the core purpose is 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 guidance on when to choose enrich_paper over alternatives such as find_related_papers, get_paper, or triage_paper. It only explains the refresh flag's effect within a cooldown window, which is operational detail, not tool-selection guidance.

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