Get paper metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions tool uses OAI-PMH, accepts multiple ID formats, and returns specific fields. However, it does not disclose potential constraints such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the record does not exist).

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states the main purpose and protocol, second sentence details input formats and output fields. No redundant information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: input types, output fields, and protocol. It could mention error scenarios or fallback behavior, but overall it is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with minimal description. The description adds significant value by explaining that the id can be a simple record id, a /rec/ URL, or an oai: identifier, and provides an example. This enriches the semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches canonical metadata for PhilArchive/PhilPapers records via OAI-PMH. Specifies accepted identifier formats (record id, URL, OAI-PMH identifier) and lists returned fields (title, authors, date, subjects, language, abstract, landing-page URL, open-access PDF indicator). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like fetch_pdf (full-text PDF) or search_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?

Describes when to use the tool (to fetch metadata for a specific record) and what inputs it accepts. Does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., fetch_pdf, search_papers) implies this is for metadata-only retrieval.

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