get_paper_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and retry profile is fully covered. The description adds the accepted identifier namespaces (which is really parameter help) but nothing else behavioral, such as error behavior for an unresolvable id or the record's scope.

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, no filler, with the scope ('one paper') front-loaded ahead of the accepted identifier forms. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the returned record, and the one required parameter is disambiguated. The only missing piece for an agent choosing among nine siblings is explicit routing guidance.

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% and the single parameter 'identifier' is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it enumerates DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv id and OpenAlex id as accepted forms. It stops short of giving formatting examples or namespace prefixes (e.g. 'doi:10.…'), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves the 'full record for one paper'. This clearly separates it from the search_* siblings and from get_fulltext (full record vs full text), though it does not explicitly name any sibling to route against.

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 rather than stated: the tool is for looking up a single known paper. It never says when to prefer it over get_fulltext or verify_citation, nor what to do if you lack an identifier (use search_literature). With nine siblings, a routing hint would have been cheap and valuable.

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