Get Paper Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it explain error behavior, authentication requirements, or what 'detailed metadata' encompasses. It lacks any additional behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds necessary detail about accepted ID types. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does and what inputs it accepts. However, it could be more specific about the return value (e.g., that it returns a single object with fields like title, authors, year) to fully compensate for the lack of an output schema.

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%; the schema already thoroughly explains 'paper_id' with examples of accepted formats. The description's mention of accepted ID types largely duplicates the schema without adding new meaning. Thus, a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed metadata for a paper by ID.' It names a specific resource (paper) and the action (get metadata), and the list of accepted ID types (S2 ID, DOI, arXiv, PhilArchive) further distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_citations or search_papers.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a paper ID and want metadata) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'For searching, use search_papers' or 'For full text, use get_pdf.' The context is clear but not prescriptive.

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