get_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and the source parameter explains auto-detection, but the description does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, fallback behavior across backends, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides compact, useful parameter details. The Args block is efficient and every line adds information needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Parameter semantics are well covered, but the description lacks explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving a small contextual gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does this well: paper_id is documented with accepted ID formats (arXiv, DOI, OpenReview, Semantic Scholar), and source is explained as an optional backend override with auto-detection when omitted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch metadata / abstract for one paper by its id.' This clearly scopes the tool to a single-paper metadata lookup, which implicitly separates it from search_papers and get_paper_text, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call this when you have a paper identifier and need metadata or an abstract. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against siblings like search_papers or get_paper_text, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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